Interview Results

In this section, we provide an assessment of WD’s role and impact on the development of the life sciences cluster in Western Canada based on a series of interviews with project recipients and key industry informants. Project recipients interviewed were representatives from organizations in the project sample, while the names of key industry informants were provided by WD.

This section is divided into seven parts. In Parts A and B, we describe the status of the projects represented by the project recipients followed by descriptions of the characteristics of the key informants. In Parts C and D we report on the project recipients’ view of the importance of WD’s financial contribution and support of the life sciences cluster. In Part E, we then describe the view of WD held by the key informants. In Part F we provide a summary of the views held by project recipients and key informants of WD’s role, followed by suggestions for future directions in Part G.

Part A - About the project recipients

Almost 70 percent of the interviewed project recipients reported that the portion of their projects funded by WD were complete and in operation. Many of the project recipients reported they had increased capacity around the project through building networks and partnerships while beginning to establish related research and knowledge infrastructure. Some project recipients had also undertaken applied research and development.

Table 7.1 Project recipients – project status

Project recipients reported that many of the project investments had spurred follow-on proposals for additional infrastructure or the attraction of further research funding.

Depending on the needs of the project, additional proposal requests focused on:

• Increased recruitment efforts for highly skilled people
• Advancement of the project towards commercialization
• Strategies for less dependence on government funding.

Stage of project organizational development

Most project recipients reported that although the WD-funded portion of their project was complete, the project itself was still in the early stages of development. At this stage, organizations were building capacity through networks and partnerships, and establishing research and knowledge infrastructure leading to applied R&D and prototype development.

Table 7.2 Stage of project organization development

Success in achieving project objectives

Over 80 percent of project recipients said that the portion of their project funded by WD was successful in achieving its stated objectives. According to most respondents, performance indicators set at the beginning of the project were met or exceeded. Several project recipients reported being able to leverage significant additional funds because their project had moved into an operational stage from a start-up mode. (For example, an initial WD investment of $0.545 million in establishing a shellfish research institute in BC led to an additional $13 million in funding from a variety of public and private sources).

Table 7.3 Success in achieving project objectives

Partnership with Agriculture Canada, Infectious Disease Centre in Manitoba, and Health Canada illustrates the relationships that were developed as a result of the project – Interview respondent.

When asked to report on which objectives their project was successful in meeting, project recipients most often mentioned activities related to building collaboration and creating networks through the development of regional partnerships and the creation of linkages and synergies.

As shown in Table 7.4, project respondents ranked which project objectives they were successful at meeting.

Table 7.4 Projects successfully meeting project objectives

Project recipients reported successful support of the life sciences cluster in a variety of ways, including the ability to leverage existing investment in technology platforms which then provided access to scientists and others. (For example, funding projects at Genome BC has enabled the transfer of technology from the centres of expertise in the universities into the hands of users, for example, hospitals, which are applying the technology to ongoing clinical processes.)

The project brought capacity to an area where none existed, research through a community lens – Interview respondent.

Project recipients reported that projects were able to fill gaps, including the ability to provide facilities that enabled the recipients to attract new faculty members and world-class scientists. Many comments were made by project recipients regarding the importance of having the right infrastructure in place to attract highly qualified people and funding. This opinion was particularly evident in smaller communities where relatively small WD investments appear to have had significant impact.

Project recipients reported that project funding also enabled communities to build innovation capacity through the introduction of new approaches and areas of research. Examples of these types of projects included:

• Research into the transformation of ethanol into biofuels
• Research into the link between animal and human infectious diseases, (an uncommon research topic but crucial considering that human infectious diseases are often transferred from animals)
• Development of a partnership to close the gap between scientists and engineers and end users that would be using innovative medical device applications.

Unexpected beneficial results

The growth in interest in forestry at the farm level, as a result of the project, has been very positive – Interview respondent.

When project recipients were asked what they considered to be unexpected beneficial results from their projects the most often cited response was increased collaboration and networking.  For example, one project involved a farm-focused group being brought together with a forestry-focused group.

Although the main project objective was to launch a more knowledge-based approach to sustainability in the forest cluster, the project also resulted in an increased interest in forestry at the farm level.

Bringing the medical school to the north has had an impact on different clusters in the region…(we) are amazed at the impact which led us to new concepts of social capital (the degree to which people ‘engage’ in their community) and innovations in life sciences – Interview respondent.

Another frequently cited unexpected beneficial result was the expansion of international linkages. On one project, the recipients were able to bring a European materials specialist to the province for a workshop. Not only did the participants of the workshop benefit from the transfer of knowledge but the student participants were able to take that knowledge with them when they began full-time employment in industry. Another example of the expansion of international linkages was provided by the Northern Campus of the UBC medical school project at the University of Northern British Columbia. The project recipients involved with that project commented on being overwhelmed by the international interest in their innovative approach to remote clinical education.

Unexpected negative results

Project recipients were also asked what they considered to be unexpected negative results from the project. The primary concern which emerged was the ability of start-up facilities to sustain operations on a long-term basis.

A few respondents reported negative public reaction to their project. A project involving construction in an inner-city community created concerns over city zoning and the project impact on the inner-city. During the time needed to resolve those issues, delays on the construction project resulted in cost overruns. Another project raised initial community concern about research occurring on infectious diseases in their city and neighbourhood. The lesson learned in both these cases was the recognition of the need for engaging the public in an educational discussion on the project benefits during the project conception stage.

Part B - About the key industry informants

Key industry informants were considered by WD to be leaders in their field, and to have contributed to the overall development of the life sciences cluster. Some key informants had received funding from WD in the past but none were receiving project funding at the time of the interview. When asked to describe their relationship with WD, the responses of key informants ranged from having a peripheral relationship to having an important partnership with the organization.

As shown in Table 7.5, 83 percent of key industry informants indicated having had some interaction with WD.

Table 7.5 WD and key informant interaction

Of those previously receiving project funding from WD, almost 70 percent reported their project had been very successful in achieving its stated objectives. According to several key informants, project funding provided by WD led to the hiring of additional people and the attraction of other funding. Table 7.6 illustrates the success rate for projects with which key informants had been associated.

Table 7.6 Key informants project success rate

WD people are good at finding a way to make it work – Interview respondent.

When asked whether they would refer others to WD for project funding assistance, most key informants replied affirmatively.

Part C – The importance of WD’s financial contribution to projects

Many project recipients reported that WD’s investment was an important contribution to the growth of the life sciences cluster in Western Canada because it had helped to build infrastructure. Project recipients stated that WD’s investments have built the foundations of the cluster through critical purchases of equipment and facility construction.
Many project recipients also noted that WD funding helped to establish new areas of research that had previously not existed in Western Canada.
Project recipients further stated that WD funding had also supported several areas of industry-related research that are expected to create future economic benefits. Examples of industry-related research include:

• Establishing a biofuels industry based on ethanol
• Growing the value-added forest products industry
• Enhancing viticulture management practices
• Improving the health of fish species in the aquaculture industry.

WD’s ability to contribute financially to projects

For a typical project, WD’s contribution to project funding was not as large as other funding sources. Even so, project recipients stated that WD funding was considered crucial when projects required matching funds or when project funding required matching funds.

We may have found funding elsewhere, eventually, but (with WD’s help) we have been able to put teeth to things and act accordingly - Interview respondent.

Project recipients perceived WD’s ability to fund small strategic projects as an important attribute.

WD’s ability to fund projects was seen by the majority of recipients to be the most important contribution made by WD to support the life sciences cluster.  Thirty-two percent of project recipients reported that without WD funding their project would not have gone ahead. Project recipients indicated that without WD funding their projects would have experienced the following:

• Project not proceeding
• Project delayed
• Project only partially initiated
• Project scale reduced
• Project cancelled
• Facilities only partially equipped.

Shown in Table 7.7 are the percentage of projects that would have been negatively affected had WD funding not been available.

Table 7.7 Percentage of projects that would have been negatively affected without WD funding


 

We would not be able to focus on small samples, limiting the research capabilities – Interview respondent.

When asked to identify the incremental impacts of receiving WD funds, project recipients reported being able to use WD funds to leverage funds from other sources. Other incremental impacts identified by project recipients are: (As shown in Table 7.8).

• Longer-term viability
• Larger project scope
• Ability to hire more highly qualified people
• Earlier project start-ups
• Project completed earlier.

Table 7.8 Incremental impacts of WD project funding


 

BC is at the forefront of the industry in providing technology to people with disabilities. WD helped us to put plans together so that we could see the vision more clearly and subsequently communicate that vision – Interview respondent.

In addition to project funding, over 55 percent of project recipients viewed WD’s role as being important in the design, development or implementation of the project. Project recipients saw WD filling the following important roles:

• Ability to provide strategic advice related to the project
• Serve as a champion with other levels of government
• Conduct due diligence
• Work closely with the project team to prepare the proposal.

Where WD was not as involved in the conception of the project itself, project recipients were more likely to respond that WD was either marginally or not important in the project process. Table 7.9 illustrates the responses provided by project recipients.

Table 7.9 WD’s role in the design, development or implementation of projects

The majority of project recipients reported having good relationships with WD personnel and felt they provided support at the proposal level, as well as championing the project within government.

While many respondents reported being somewhat overwhelmed with the application process, most felt that the diligence required and the questions posed forced them to become more structured in their approach to the projects. This discipline was often cited as one of the key success factors resulting in better managed projects with more consistent and measurable outcomes.

As mentioned above, while the effort required in the application process was often thought of as onerous, many respondents felt the discipline was ultimately helpful to their projects.

WD audits every project so we are always ready for this. It is a good thing as it instils discipline in the way we manage the projects. We are always clear on the purpose - Interview respondent.

Project recipients who stated that WD played a role that was somewhat or greater in importance beyond project funding were then asked in what capacity that occurred. As shown in Table 7.10, project recipients reported that WD:

• Provided strategic advice related to the project
• Served as a champion within government for the project
• Conducted due diligence related to the project
• Assisted in designing and reviewing the project
• Played a lead role with partners
• Assisted in obtaining funding from other sources.

 

Table 7.10 WD roles beyond project funding


 

Part D – Project recipients’ view of WD’s support of the life sciences cluster

If an organization can’t participate by contributing money in the cluster, they are not useful – this is why the WD has had an impact – Interview respondent.

Project recipients viewed WD as providing seven important functions in supporting the life sciences cluster:

• Provider of project funding
• Promoter of cluster development
• Ability to serve as facilitator and catalyst
• Facilitation of infrastructure development
• Assistance with the creation of partnerships
• Ability to link national strategies and provincial issues
• Ability to give Western Canada a voice at the Federal level.

Project recipients saw WD’s most important function as providing funding to support development.

Project recipients indicated that funding support was especially important in the development of the cluster and that WD played a central role in providing that funding.

Table 7.11 The role of WD in the life sciences cluster in Western Canada

Project recipients stated that facilitating infrastructure development is an important role for WD, as they saw that having the right facilities and equipment in place can lead to additional funding and the attraction of highly qualified people.

Project recipients stated that another important role for WD is to serve as facilitator and catalyst between the federal and provincial governments, thereby ensuring the coordination and integration of resources. This role is seen to be especially important with infrastructure projects that include multiple-partners with varying interests in the project (e.g., Saskatchewan’s Canadian Light Source, or Synchrotron, project).

Project recipients also indicated that being the voice of Western Canada’s life sciences cluster is an important role for WD. Respondents suggested that Western Canada’s voice is not loud enough, and that giving Western Canada a voice provides smaller organizations with the leverage needed to compete with larger ones. Project recipients commented that this role could be enhanced even more through greater advocacy on a global level on behalf of Western Canada’s achievements in life sciences.

The effectiveness of WD in promoting Western Canada’s life sciences clusters

If an organization can’t participate by contributing money in the cluster, they are not useful – this is why the WD has had an impact – Interview respondent.

Project recipients were asked to rate how effective WD had been in supporting the life sciences cluster. Table 7.12 shows that 47 percent of project recipients interviewed believed that WD has been very effective in its efforts. Specifically, WD support for the sector was identified as:

• Filling funding gaps
• Promoting cooperation especially in the role of facilitator with government agencies
• Promoting innovation and diversification
• Facilitating partnerships and projects with industry and research institutions.

Table 7.12 Effectiveness in Supporting the Life Sciences

Federal funding for life sciences

In the federal funding landscape there are other federal agencies which contribute larger amounts of funding than WD to the life sciences cluster. These include the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Genome Canada, the National Research Council (NRC), and Health Canada. Project recipients were asked to rate WD’s role in promoting the development of Western Canada’s life sciences cluster relative to that of other federal funding sources. A large majority, 87 percent, rated WD’s contribution as significant. Most often mentioned as the basis for the response was the ability of WD to bridge funding gaps so as to make projects happen. Also significant to many project recipients was WD’s capacity to build relationships between members of the local life sciences cluster in each province.

Project recipients were asked how they would compare the impact of WD’s investments against investments made by other federal and provincial funding sources. A large majority, 97 percent, said the impact was significantly larger relative to those funding sources.  Comments reflected WD’s unique role in complementing provincial and federal funding programs and filling funding gaps when initiatives fall between the cracks.

Project recipients and key informants alike saw WD as providing a key linkage between the federal and provincial governments.

Alignment with government priorities

Project recipients generally agreed that WD priorities aligned with federal and provincial priorities. They also felt that WD worked well with its provincial counterparts on project initiatives. Project recipients suggested the alignment could be improved by changing the short-term focus common to political systems to a longer-term view that is needed to see research through to results.

Federal/Provincial priorities change with the wind. State of uncertainty. Hard to know what the Federal/Provincial priorities are – Interview respondent.

Several respondents clearly noted that if federal and/or provincial priorities were in place, they were unknown to them.

 

WD’s role in forming strategic partnerships or networks

Project recipients were asked to categorize WD’s role in forming strategic partnerships or networks. They were asked to determine whether WD acted as a:

• Equal participant
• Principal catalyst
• Willing follower
• Reluctant follower.

As illustrated in Table 7.13, over 50 percent of project recipients saw WD as being an equal participant in forming strategic partnerships and networks across the life sciences cluster.

Project recipients saw partnerships as a vehicle to exchange information and a way to bring organizations together with additional funding. The most frequently mentioned partnerships and networks were the provincial Genome offices, the Canadian Light Source (Synchrotron) and Westlink Innovation Network.

Table 7.13 Forming strategic partnerships or networks– project recipients


 
Project recipients stated that WD played an important role in the development of strategic partnerships. For example, in the case of the Michael Smith Foundation, which was the hosting agency for the Canada West Health Innovation Council (CWHIC), a project recipient commented on how WD drove a collaboration to develop a strategic network.

Many project recipients saw an opportunity for WD to play a major catalytic role in bringing together various stakeholders (including researchers, government agencies, and entrepreneurs) from across Western Canada to form a strategic approach to global issues.

Part E – Key informants’ view of WD’s role

Over 85 percent of key informants believed that WD was recognized for its role in supporting the development of the life sciences cluster. Key informants who replied that WD was not recognized, stated that the main reasons for this were lack of media exposure and lack of strategic marketing.  Key informants suggested that while the broader public may be aware of WD as an organization, it is unfamiliar with what services the organization provides.

Table 7.14 WD’s role in developing the life sciences cluster


 

...WD drove the collaboration between the province(s) and the Federal government in developing a strategic network focused on the economic spin-off from the health system. To date, the CWHIC project was successful in creating business plans for networks in medical devices, infectious diseases and immunology, and functional foods – Interview respondent.

Key informants had mixed perceptions of how successful WD has been in achieving its overall objectives. Some key informants were unfamiliar with WD’s specific objectives. Others felt that WD had supported the development of many start-up groups, and contributed to research and development infrastructure that was beginning to move into the commercial development phase.

Alignment with government priorities

When key informants were asked whether WD priorities aligned with federal and provincial priorities, no clear answer emerged. Instead, many comments were made regarding the lack of federal or provincial life science strategies. In cases where respondents knew of existing provincial or federal strategic efforts, comments were made regarding their narrow focus. Again, WD was seen as a facilitating agency that could coordinate efforts and align priorities between provincial and federal governments.

Western Canada’s life sciences cluster needs have changed

Key informants observed there will be an ongoing need to identify long-term and secure operational funding as a result of the construction of new research labs and related infrastructure. In areas where research is turning into commercial products, key informants expressed the need for start-up capital.

Key informants commented on how the globalization of the life sciences industry has affected the needs of the cluster in Western Canada. To compete for capital and people, key informants state that if Western Canada’s life science cluster is to become best in class in research, infrastructure and people, strategic coordination among industry, research, and government is crucial.

WD’s contribution to translating knowledge into economic and social benefits

Key informants considered that, given its limited budget and mandate, WD has done well in its ability to contribute to translating research knowledge into economic and social benefits. Key informants mentioned several projects as examples of where WD investment has provided economic and social benefits, (including the St. Boniface Hospital Research Centre¹ and the CDRD.)²

 

Other contributions from WD were seen along the continuum of translating knowledge:

At the community level -

       They support a different need; the other [federal] groups are not interested in investment at the community level,

At the public good level -

       There is a need to fund the transfer. Who is paying for the bit to connect the research to health outcomes? Industry is not interested in this piece.

At the innovation level -

       The innovation continuum is not fully funded, WD has recognized that.

- Interview respondents.

 

Key informants perceived that WD was doing as much as its current budget and mandate would allow, but suggested there was room for greater financial and organizational commitment to strengthen the cluster.

WD’s contribution to commercialization of innovation

Because WD’s mandate does not permit direct funding to for-profit organizations, it is seen by key informants as primarily contributing at the infrastructure stage of development rather than at the company formation stage. Key informants did acknowledge that what commercialization activity was possible had been limited to specific projects such as CDRD and Smart Park³,  (home to the Richardson Centre for Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals).⁴  Key informants were also aware of WD’s partnering arrangements with NRC-IRAP (National Research Council – Industrial Research Assistance Program) that provide technology transfer and commercialization services but expressed the concern that services offered by this organization not be duplicated by WD.

WD’s role in forming strategic partnerships or networks

Key informants were asked to categorize WD’s role in forming strategic partnership or networks. They were asked to comment on whether WD acted as:

• Equal participant
• Principal catalyst
• Willing follower
• Reluctant follower.

As illustrated in Table 7.15, almost 50 percent of key informants considered WD to be an equal participant in forming strategic partnerships or networks.

When asked if they knew of any successful partnerships, key informants most frequently mentioned Bio-Med City ⁵ and the Genomics Network.

Table 7.15 Role in forming strategic partnerships or networks – key informants

WD’s characteristics that provide unique program assistance

Familiarity with the local economy and cluster is important because it is the starting point of interaction – Interview respondent.

In addition to the availability and flexibility of WD’s funding, key informants indicated that WD’s familiarity with the local economy and cluster was also an important characteristic. Because WD responded and worked closely with project recipients and other members of the life sciences cluster, key informants saw WD as providing the benefits of local representation.

(WD) does not respond quickly, depends on approval processes. – Interview respondent.

Key informants suggested that WD could provide additional resources and leadership to enhance each of the following categories:

• Increase the availability of funding and flexibility of programs
• Increase response time and decision-making process
• Increase the ability to match national resources and regional needs
• Increase familiarity with local economy and cluster
• Increase skilled staff based in the regions
• Increase the focus on small business development
• Increase the capability of providing services within the Pan-western mandate
• Increase the ability to be proactive and provide leadership

Related comments included key informant’s perceptions that WD moves too slowly when making decisions, that decisions depend on approval processes, and that WD was reactive to the cluster rather than proactive.

Table 7.16 WD’s unique characteristics

Factors that constrain WD from having a more significant impact

The Minister [Health and Economic Development] challenged the group to come up with a Federal/Provincial partnership to address a priority issue; the general concept of innovation for the health system is a novelty. WD started the ball rolling – Interview respondent.

Key informants were asked what factors constrain WD from having a more significant impact in promoting the life sciences cluster. As indicated in Table 7.17, possible constraints cited included:

• Funding constraints – inability to commit to multi-year programs and initiatives
• Systemic issues related to government bureaucracy and/or political considerations
• Changing priorities and approach
• Human resource constraints
• Not enough communication and interaction with other organizations related to the development or selection of projects.

Thirty-two percent of key informants indicated funding constraints presented limitations on WD’s impact. Key informants suggested several specific areas where they considered funding to be constrained, including:

• Inability to provide funding to for-profit organizations
• Lack of commitment to multi-year programs and initiatives
• Inability to provide patient capital especially at early-stages of company formation.

Thirty percent of key informants also indicated systemic issues relating to government bureaucracy and/or political considerations affected WD’s ability to have more impact on cluster development.

Key informants also stated that WD’s changing priorities created an atmosphere of uncertainty as to what resources would be available for future cluster development. This was an area of concern, as many areas of life science research require a long lead-time before products or services are available for implementation or use by the public.

Table 7.17 Factors constraining WD’s promotion of the life sciences cluster

Part F – Summary of project recipients & key informants view of WD’s role

Both project recipients and key informants agreed that WD’s project funding over the last six years had contributed to expanding the life sciences cluster in Western Canada. Three themes emerged from both sets of interviews.

1. WD investments have made an impact on increasing the physical infrastructure capacity across Western Canada.
2. WD investments have made an impact on strengthening the research capabilities in the region.
3. WD’s unique role as facilitator has resulted in multi-party projects that have strengthened the linkages between the cluster, government and research institutes.

Both groups provided examples of projects currently receiving WD support that are seen as proactive efforts to develop the cluster. 

In particular, respondents involved with biopharmaceuticals were keen to see more funding focused on creating opportunities to further incubate and review technologies prior to the transfer to commercial applications. Respondents cited the CDRD initiative in British Columbia and the Canadian Light Source project in Saskatchewan as being examples of the type of project that WD should continue to support.

Key informants and project recipients were asked to rate the impact that WD funding has had on the cluster using a scale of 1 to 5 (1 being low impact, 5 being high impact).

As can be seen in Table 7.18, key informants rated the top areas impacted by WD funding as:

• 1   Increased physical infrastructure capacity
• 2   Strengthened research capabilities in Western Canada
• 3   (Tied for third place), strengthened linkages and facilitated technology transfer and commercialization
• 3   (Tied for third place), facilitated technology transfer and commercialization.

The project recipients ranked three of those areas in slightly different order:

• 1   Strengthened research capabilities in Western Canada
• 2   Strengthened linkages and facilitated technology transfer and commercialization
• 3   Increased physical infrastructure capacity.

Table 7.18 Extent to which WD’s funding to date has generated (either directly or indirectly) impacts in key areas.

Key areas	Key Informants		Project Recipients
	Value	Rank	Value	Rank
Strengthened research capabilities in Western Canada	3.7	2	4.4	1
Increased investment in R&D	3.3		3.9
Strengthened linkages between cluster, government and/or the research infrastructure	3.4	3	4.2	2
Increased access to skilled workers within Canada	2.3		3.5
Increased access to skilled workers from outside Canada	1.8		2.9
Increased access to investment capital	2.9		2.9
Facilitated technology transfer and commercialization	3.4	3	3.7
Increased the profile of the region or cluster	3.3		3.9
Increased physical infrastructure capacity	3.9	1	4.0	3

Note: Impacts were measured on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 being no impact and 5 a major impact.

The membership pool really stepped up and hired our graduates; they would have had to hire these people from the US if the project had not proceeded – Interview respondent.

Project recipients rated the impacts of increasing access to skilled workers within and from outside Canada higher than key informants. Because of their involvement at an operational level, project recipients were more likely involved with hiring skilled workers as requirements for their projects, and as a result, may be more aware of the skill sets needed and local availability.

Of note however is that both project recipients and key informants rated the impacts of increased access to skilled workers lower when compared to the other types of impacts.

Part G – Future direction for the life sciences cluster and WD

... good infrastructure attracts good people and funding – Interview respondent

Key industry informants were asked to share their opinion regarding Western Canada’s needs for the development of the life sciences cluster. Categories for their responses included:

• Increase access to investment capital, all stages of company growth
• Access to highly skilled people
• Strengthen linkages and collaboration among researchers, research and industrial communities
• Greater visibility in external markets
• Increase in the rate of successful commercialization.

Table 7.19 illustrates how key informants rated Western Canada’s needs. At the top of the list was the need for an increased rate of successful commercialization, followed closely by increased access to investment capital.

Key informants also stated that individuals with business skills at the senior executive level were needed.

Other comments focused on having greater visibility of the cluster in external markets.

Table 7.19 Life science cluster needs for further development

Key industry informants were then asked how WD could enhance its life sciences program activities. As shown in Table 7.20, over 20 percent indicated that increasing WD’s base funding and enabling project recipients to secure multi-year commitments was important.

Key informants identified other actions that WD could take to enhance program activities which included:

• Develop and pursue common strategies with other government agencies
• Strengthen linkages between programs, at all levels of government
• More pro-active in program delivery
• Base funding/secure multi-year commitments
• Increase WD’s profile
• Focus more on commercialization and start-ups.

WD can help ensure that efforts are not doubled in government – Interview respondent.

Throughout the interviews, both key informants and project recipients suggested that WD continue to develop and pursue a common cluster strategy with other government agencies. Key informants in particular felt WD should bring together provinces with similar interests, (for example, Alberta and British Columbia in biopharmaceuticals, Saskatchewan and Manitoba in agricultural biotechnology) to create stronger partnerships.

Table 7.20 Opportunities for WD to enhance their life science activities


 
Both key informants and project recipients suggested that WD take on a more proactive approach in seeking out infrastructure projects, and that it have an increased focus on commercialization.

Key informants were also asked what additional gaps related to supporting the life sciences cluster could be filled by WD. Key informants were asked to consider the following categories:

• Investment capital, particularly early stage
• Underdeveloped linkages
• Technology demonstrations
• Technology commercialization
• Weak innovation culture
• Facility operating costs.

Table 7.21 below illustrates how key informants gave equal consideration to the choices of providing investment capital, particularly at the early stage development of commercial products and technology commercialization.

Table 7.21 Gaps to be filled

We need to bring our strengths together, to think about the issues in a global context. It is not just one province and a global market; it is Canada and a global market – Interview respondent.

Suggestions for investment capital included a pre-venture capital fund with the ability to do follow on rounds. There was awareness that funding should be provided strategically and not be used to prop up start-up companies.

In every province, and especially in Alberta and Manitoba, key informants and project recipients indicated difficulty in raising appropriate amounts of capital from all sources, in particular venture capital funds. Project recipients provided suggestions regarding how WD might support access to capital as follows:

Life sciences are so wide ranging. It is important to have areas of focus. WD can work with the regions to jointly identify priorities for development. Need more funding – Interview respondent.

• Enabling greater access to foreign sources of funding (through the reduction of regulatory barriers)
• Developing strategic initiatives with small and medium sized companies to find ways to fill funding gaps
• Assisting with commercialization initiatives to identify sources and key contacts of funding
• Providing funding to for-profit companies
• Providing funding for operating funds to ensure sustainability
• Creating an investment fund for life science start-up companies
• Providing access to risk capital.

Another role suggested by key informants and project recipients for WD was to work with the industry on projects from the initial concept through to the commercialization stage so as to address needs earlier in the commercialization process.

Key informants and project recipients both suggested that WD could enhance its effectiveness in supporting the cluster through a greater degree of participation in breaking down barriers across the centres of excellence throughout Western Canada.

__________

¹ St. Boniface General Hospital Research Centre supports the development of life sciences innovations from research to commercialization including clinical practices used to improve treatment within the hospital. The Research Centre plays a key role in Manitoba’s innovation infrastructure.

² CDRD provides facilities for drug discovery research while including a for-profit-company to handle commercialization.

³ Smartpark Development Corporation, a real estate development company, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the University of Manitoba with the mandate to develop 100 acres of designated university land as a research and technology park.

⁴ The Richardson Centre for Functional Foods and Nutraceuticals is located in the Smartpark Research and Technology Park at the University of Manitoba. The Centre researches and develops functional foods and nutraceuticals, with a focus on the crops of the Canadian Prairies.

⁵ The catalyst for BioMed City was the International Centre for Infectious Diseases (ICID), a not-for-profit private agency. Funding for Bio-Med City is provided through private–public partnerships for the purpose of training, research and commercialization.