The purpose of this consultation was to develop a national "white paper" on psychiatric genetics, neurogenetics and brain genomics research that would:
Consultation participants included 35 researchers from the fields of psychiatric genetics, behavioural genetics, neurogenetics, statistics, and science administration. They took part as individuals who wanted to contribute their experience and expertise in this area, rather than as representatives of organizations or professional associations. The consultation was co-sponsored by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addictions and Institute of Genetics in partnership with Genome Canada.
Dr. Rod McInnes, Scientific Director, Canadian Institutes of Health Research Institute of Genetics, welcomed participants by asking them to "think big", focusing on long-term, large-scale research that would have a significant impact on the field.
Catherine Armour, Programs Director, Genome Canada, described her organization's efforts to develop a national strategy in genomics, including funding for over 50 projects and the establishment of five genome centres. She noted that consultations like these are initial conversations focused on future possibilities. She indicated that Genome Canada hoped that the participants would be able to identify some large-scale projects as a result of this workshop.
Dr. Rémi Quirion, Scientific Director, CIHR Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction (INMHA), remarked that while CIHR is pleased to form partnerships with other funders, the impetus for research partnerships has to come from the research community, whose buy-in is important to advance research in psychiatric genetics, neurogenetics and brain genomics. He noted that, compared to its relative importance, little money is going into this field. Dr. Quirion emphasized the importance of partnerships - among funders at all levels and researchers of all disciplines - in the development of a national strategy focused on the brain, mental illnesses and addiction. He hoped that this consultation would help to foster new collaborations among participating researchers and especially that the young scientists present would have an opportunity to participate actively. In closing, Dr. Quirion noted that Canada has all the ingredients for success in this field and the task now is to make Canada the place to be for research in psychiatric genetics, neurogenetics and brain genomics.
[ top of page ]
[ top of page ]
Dr. Roberta Palmour, Professor, Psychiatric Genetics, McGill University
Success in this field requires a tremendous amount of expertise and collaboration among researchers with a variety of skills, perspectives and resources. We need to understand how we can be most competitive in this field and what it would take to develop new paradigms to appreciate how specific genes exert their biological effects and how they interact with particular environmental factors or with one another. Concepts and paradigms are lacking.
Phenotyping and methods of analysis, such as linkages and bioinformatics, are key. How do we put them together? Do we need other methods of analysis? We have the expertise; we now need to grow it considerably in terms of the size of the initiative. Above all, we need to convince ourselves that the genes we are localizing are really vulnerability genes for brain disorders, and that knowing more about these genes will really improve the health of Canadians.
Canadian genetics and neurosciences research has been extremely strong for a long time; its contribution has been disproportionate both in terms of its funding base and the size of the Canadian population. Canada also has the advantage of unique populations and families; we need to build on this and begin to integrate existing strengths.
Research that is visionary, innovative and of high quality is also expensive - trying to do genome analysis cheaply doesn't yield anything of benefit. To obtain the necessary precision requires analysis that is very expensive in terms of people power for bioinformatics and genetic linkage analysis. The former MRC and now CIHR have invested generously but none of us has the money we need to do what needs to be done.
Our challenge for this workshop is to discuss questions such as: "If we had more funding, how would we best use it to develop the human resources and research opportunities that are unique to Canada? How would we maximize Canadian competitive advantages at a world level? What global problems would we work on if we had the money? What resources would benefit the whole field? Do we need additional platforms and would it be feasible for them to be more clinically or analytically-based, e.g., analytic platforms or phenotyping? What would it take to develop the concepts and paradigms that the field needs?" Given current realities, we have to concentrate on what is feasible so that the potential for large-scale projects will lead to breakthrough results.
This consultation is an opportunity to capitalize on diverse Canadian strengths and expertise, to think big and new. Its goals include identification of some priority themes that meet specific criteria, e.g., fleshing out information about Canadian research opportunities, and laying the groundwork for future collaborations. The resulting white paper should reflect the voice of our community, serve as the basis for advocacy, and provide the motivation for specific mechanisms that will result in increased funding.
Discussion
[ top of page ]
Dr. Alex Mackenzie, Pediatrician and Molecular Biologist, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
| The application of linkage analysis techniques to disorders whose inheritance patterns and phenotypes are complex has pointed inconsistently to many regions of the genome where disease-susceptibility alleles may lie. These studies raise methodological, statistical and phenotypic questions that have led to great skepticism about the veracity of the results. (Pamela Sklar) |
Successes in this field have been more monogenic and biochemical based, which reflects the difficulty of the problem. For example, though good progress has been made in studies related to cholesterol, in terms of autism we don't know what exactly happens in the central nervous system when a child changes from a normal functioning Down's syndrome child to fully autistic. Future approaches to neuropsychiatric disorders could include a pharmacogenetic approach to medication for first episode schizophrenia, the identification of oligogenic components underlying inherited neuropsychiatric disorders and the biological basis of (DSM IV) diseases in terms of pathology, biochemistry, and genetics. Other valuable tools would be a means of predicting an individual's predisposition to neuropsychiatric disorders (Alzheimers, autism, bi-polar, depression, psychosis, schizophrenia) and to substance abuse, gambling and other addictions. The Haplotype map will be valuable for association studies. These are generic, however, and perhaps do not give a clear sense of the precise methodological approach that would be taken.
Resources to aid these approaches and tools could be the development of brain gene expression and the correlation of clinical phenotypes. Old-fashioned phenotyping from a neurocognitive point of view is less attractive to funding agencies. We need to point out this asymmetry and ensure that funders understand that research is only as good as its weakest component - if phenotyping qualifies as this component, one of the outcomes of this consultation should be a statement to that effect.
Linkage analysis has been a dog that has not hunted. What path do we take to change this? There is a technological-epistemiological disconnect between the "omes" and our ability to join them together. We have had success in terms of our technical work, but it's important to bridge the gap between that and how the brain works.
We also need to move towards a more effective analysis of the human condition. Sifting through the genome to date has been nugatory. At the other end of spectrum are neuroanatomic and electophysiological studies. We need a better grasp of what happens in between, that affects transcripts, cellular activity and even cellular connectivity - our ability to get there needs to be improved. We also need a powerful means of probing the intracellular environments of individuals affected by neurological and psychiatric conditions. Understanding the conductivity of real, living humans is technically very challenging and in some parts undoable, but something worth striving for.
A lot of work is being done on animal models, which is an excellent approach to achieving a more effective recapitulation of the genotype and/or phenotype of disorders. These models should reflect both late stage and early stage onset of conditions. The need for pre-clinical, pre-symptomatic profiling is essential, including behavioural models.
In terms of chemical genomics, the FDA has approved approximately 1,000 drugs representing many millions of dollars of investigation on toxicity, etc., but we still don't know the effects of many of these drugs on the central nervous system (CNS); our knowledge of the effect on the transcriptional, kinase and proteomic domains is also relatively small. Profiling high quality cell lines and ultimately mouse models in the presence of drugs would be a wonderful advance for potential therapies.
Questions we need to answer include periodicity in mammals and other organisms; neural stem cells, e.g., "Why are endogenous stem cells so clinically inapparent? What is the value of super physiologic stem cells? Other important questions include molecular mechanisms and the genetics of CNS and morphogenesis including the synapse; and proteins related to neurodegeneration.
Topics we still need to understand are the role of proteins, the relationship between the brain and age - to what extent does CNS impact longevity? - and synaptic transmission/plasticity. Functional MRI needs to move from pretty pictures to a serious means of studying causal molecular understanding of brain and behaviour disorders. The role of systems analysis in the functional assessment of the brain also needs to be explored and fleshed out.
Another area for exploration is "What is thought?" It may be that, as Sherrington suggested, it is a shimmering loom of electrical activity, the channels and electrical discharges that comprise cognition. There are so many possibilities for all of us to consider during this consultation.
Discussion
[ top of page ]
Dr. Mark Bisby, Vice-President, Research, CIHR
Given the current Canadian research climate and availability of resources, now is the time to do things differently. CIHR is not only providing more money but we are using it differently. In addition to investigator-initiated research, CIHR supports an increasing amount of strategic multidisciplinary research targeted to specific research activity. Total graduate study awards and grants are increasing both in numbers and value; CIHR grants are now one fifth as large as that of the US National Institutes of Health.
Federal government support for research has increased five-fold over five years. Besides CIHR, the Canadian Foundation for Innovation and Genome Canada are important funding bodies, who also bring additional funding through provincial matching funds. However, there are problems related to a lack of a coordinated approach to research funding that dilutes the effect of research efforts.
Given the difference in levels of research funding between Canada and the US, the challenge is for Canada to improve its competitive edge through better utilization of human resources and unique research opportunities. One major difference is the relatively small role Canadian business plays in the research area, both in funding and actual research. However, based on comparisons of research papers and citations, Canadian research compares favourably to other countries, particularly in the field of neurosciences.
Canadian strengths include clinical medicine and neuroscience. In addition, the CIHR INMHA and IG research community is very strong and collaborative. Another advantage is the single-payer health care system.
Weaknesses include an historic lack of networking and communications, the emphasis on single-investigator projects, a lack of support for databases, the inability to make long-term funding commitments, neglect of clinical research and fragmentation of funding sources. Other obstacles exist that are outside the control of the research community, such as provincial health care and educational systems, the primitive state of health care records, the patchwork of research-unfriendly privacy legislation, the lack of industrial receptor capacity and the "tall poppy" syndrome where success is regarded with suspicion.
In closing, Dr. Bisby suggested that the Canadian research mascot should be the coyote, whose characteristics include alertness, intelligence, resilience, flexibility, collaboration and resourcefulness. Like the coyote, Canadian researchers in this area need to find their niche and exploit it.
Discussion
[ top of page ]
Dr. Steve Scherer, Senior Scientist, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto
The traditional paradigm was to study gene variation and mutation to arrive at the phenotype. With the revolution in the "omics" we have a different entry point into studying variation and mutation, e.g., perturbations in the proteome and genome, and transcriptome. Whatever route we take, ultimately we're looking at the phenotype and the disease, and the environment also needs to be taken into account. Human and model organisms are also important to speed along the process.
We're experiencing a paradigm shift in medical research - the problems are much more complex and we need a larger perspective. This has led to a change in the way we approach research problems, e.g., gene mapping broadens to gene sequencing; gene action to gene regulation. Given this situation, research needs to be more multidisciplinary - no single discipline can solve the all of these complexities alone, e.g., a pedigree for a complex trait. There is a lot of information available to study disease problems, but it requires a collaborative approach.
Technology platforms can be categorized into three areas:
While Genome Canada and CFI have had a role in funding gene mapping, these platforms represent an opportunity for funding agencies to work in a much more coordinated way to ensure best use of resources.
There are many new technologies including chromosome analysis using spectral type karyotyping, gene expression and brain chips, and oligonucleotide or clone-based arrays, and advances in the imaging of cells, e.g., identifying inversions and polymorphisms. Large scale, high throughput and relatively expensive sequencing and genotyping using chip-based approaches will soon have a major impact. There is a precedent in the private sector where a mammalian genome has been resequenced within a year using a chip-based approach. A US Company has generated a haplotype map of the human genome which is available now for almost every chromosome. In addition, another company has resequenced the chimpanzee genome, including the coding region of every putative human gene in the chimpanzee. This information and these technologies should start to have an impact in the academic community in the near future.
Genome microarray methodologies are also on the horizon; platforms in Canada will be providing this as a service. The purpose of these methodologies will be to look for genomic variation based on microarray hybridization techniques.
Comparative genomics is becoming more viable. Genomics sequences for over 100 mostly prokaryotic species already exist in the database. The human genome was finished this year; the rat genome is nearly done, as are the chicken and chimpanzee genome. Comparative genomics will be a useful approach to find out not only where genes and regulatory regions are located but also where species-specific transcripts or genes might reside. This in turn could lead to specific phenotypic traits.
The proteome is likely to be far more difficult than the genome, as there are 28-29,000 protein coding genes and at least five times as many proteins. The complexity of humans at the protein level will require sophisticated bioinformatics and computational biology techniques to handle the complex structure and systemic interactions.
Genome annotation, which covers the spectrum from structure analysis and function to comparative biology to systems biology, will help us, but must be used carefully to avoid misleading interpretations of data. Expertise needs to be available for it to work well.
In closing, Dr. Scherer suggested that a valuable initiative for funding would be to create a coordinated, web-based database of information on genome centres in Canada and with other links. To be effective, the research community needs to know where the resources are.
Discussion
[ top of page ]
Participants discussed potential research opportunities and developed the following guiding principles, opportunity areas, and enabling cross-cutting supports. (Lists are in alphabetical order, not prioritized.)
Potential Canadian strategic research opportunities were described as initiatives that:
It was emphasized that the roles of gene-environment interactions and a developmental perspective are both important in furthering our understanding of these issues. The overarching goal of the research is validated outcomes that can be translated into results that improve the health of Canadians affected by neurological diseases, mental illnesses, addictions and other diseases associated with the senses, e.g., vision, hearing, smell and pain.
Based on this description, participants named five Canadian strategic research opportunities in Psychiatric Genetics, Neurogenetics and Brain Genomics:
[ top of page ]
| Basic biomedical, e.g., genetic, molecular, cellular, tissue physiology | Applied clinical, e.g., drugs, devices, social intervention | Health systems, health services, e.g., health care quality, cost-effectiveness | Societal, cultural and environmental influences on health and the health of populations |
|---|---|---|---|
|
X X |
X |
|
X X |
| Question | Timeline | Resource Requirements | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Genetic linkage studies of large families from founder populations of neuropsychiatric diseases and disorders e.g., schizophrenia, bipolar, autism, Alzheimer's and co-morbidity with measures of endophenotypes and quantitative traits, such as Newfoundland, Quebec, Ashkenazy Jews, Chinese, Aboriginal populations, twins and adoptees, contrasting populations. |
5-10 years |
Not specified |
| Examples of Related Science and Technology Platforms: DNA repository; genomics; proteomics; bioinformatics, GELS, genetic analysis, Haplotype map. | |||
|
2 |
Gene-environment studies through specific populations, e.g., ethnic, twins, adoptees, co-morbidity mechanisms. |
5-10 years |
Not specified |
| Examples of Related Science and Technology Platforms: Same as #1. | |||
|
3 |
Incorporate genetics into ongoing epidemiological behaviour studies and additional measures. |
5 years |
Inventory of |
Discussion
[ top of page ]
This area includes chemical signaling within and between cells at a variety of different degrees of integration, e.g., organ systems. Development both before and after birth is implicit. Synaptic plasticity, cellular physiology, polymorphisms, drug discovery targets, and mechanisms of environmental action are also included.
| Basic biomedical, e.g., genetic, molecular, cellular, tissue physiology | Applied clinical, e.g., drugs, devices, social intervention | Health systems, health services, e.g., health care quality, cost-effectiveness | Societal, cultural and environmental influences on health and the health of populations |
|---|---|---|---|
|
X |
X |
|
X |
| Question | Timeline | Resource Requirements | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Constructive vs. destructive synaptic modeling in normal neural development and neurodegenerations. |
10 years |
$40M |
| Examples of Related Science and Technology Platforms: Imaging, genomics, proteomics (molecular architecture of synaptic remodeling), chips, animal model, drug discovery, computational modeling of protein structures. | |||
|
2 |
Neuroinflammation: from gene to patient and back again. |
5 years |
$7.5 - 9M |
| Examples of Related Science and Technology Platforms: genomics, immunology, proteomics, imaging, animal models for neurotrauma and inflammation. | |||
|
3 |
Disregulated chemical signaling in addictions: gene discovery, effects of chronic drug abuse, treating the withdrawn nervous system, e.g., a way of finding genes as well as a means of remodeling. |
5 years |
$25M |
| Examples of Related Science and Technology Platforms: patients, genetics and genomics, animal models, cell biology, imaging (micro/human PET), proteomics, gene and environment levels. | |||
Discussion
[ top of page ]
This area includes all animals but does not include cell or culture systems. The power of animal models is that they provide an easier way to find genes underlying phenotypes, particularly in this complex field of genetics. This area also includes phenotyping-driven gene identification, and new phenotype developments, adding to those presently available. Phenotype is an inclusive term, including but not limited to drug response parameters, gene profiling, imaging, behaviour, and innovative additions to traditional phenotypes. There is no necessary a priori hypothesis. Exploration should not be restricted to single gene models, but should also focus on QTL concepts
| Basic biomedical, e.g., genetic, molecular, cellular, tissue physiology | Applied clinical, e.g., drugs, devices, social intervention | Health systems, health services, e.g., health care quality, cost-effectiveness | Societal, cultural and environmental influences on health and the health of populations |
|---|---|---|---|
|
X |
X |
|
|
Comments:
| Question | Timeline | Resource Requirements | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
What gene(s) can we discover using relevant phenotypes (inclusive of drugs) to screen ENU mutagenized mice, in Canada and Internationally? Develop relevant focused phenotype driven gene discovery in animal system. |
8 years |
$10-20M |
| Examples of Related Science and Technology Platforms: Hoteling2 phenotype platforms Enabling mouse technology for the field, e.g., to encourage more people to do mouse work; collaborate and work as a team throughout the country; genetically and pathologically clean animals; facilitating the use of mice throughout the country. | |||
|
2 |
What gene(s) can we discover using relevant phenotypes (inclusive of drug response) for QTL analysis directly or of modifiers of genes important in the mouse brain? |
8 years |
$20-40M |
| Examples of Related Science and Technology Platforms: See Question #1. | |||
|
3 |
What genes can we discover using relevant phenotypes (inclusive of drugs) for genetic screens in non-mouse animal systems? |
8 years |
$9M ($1M for equipment; $1M/year operating funds |
| Examples of Related Science and Technology Platforms: Hoteling phenotype platforms (i.e., create opportunities for screening). | |||
[ top of page ]
Pharmacogenetics involves individual treatment management, the definition of alternative phenotypes (predictive or related to treatment response) linked to genetic variation, and biomarker-based predictive algorithms, both genetic and non-genetic. It applies to the early phase of illness as well as the chronic phase, with a focus on psychosis, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Tourette's, depression, bipolar, degenerative (Alzheimer's and Parkinson's) and multiple sclerosis.3
Molecular, cellular and animal models of the effects of drugs (including normal animals as well as animal models of illness) form a part of this area. There is potential for chip development for treatment management. Detailed studies of molecular biochemical and physiological mechanisms through which genetic variation modifies treatment, e.g., signaling mechanisms, are required. There are pharmaco-economic implications of optimizing treatment and limiting costly side-effects and toxicities due to the under- or over-prescribing of medication and through application of the same platforms across disease groups.
| Basic biomedical, e.g., genetic, molecular, cellular, tissue physiology | Applied clinical, e.g., drugs, devices, social intervention | Health systems, health services, e.g., health care quality, cost-effectiveness | Societal, cultural and environmental influences on health and the health of populations |
|---|---|---|---|
|
2 |
1 |
2 |
2.5 |
Comments:
| Question | Timeline | Resource Requirements | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Genetics predictors and neurological mechanisms related to clinical outcomes (including behavioural markers and side effects) in early psychosis. Study would involve 1,000 patients, imaging in a subset, ongoing model development. Technology would be applied in the five years following this phase. |
5 years |
$20M |
| Examples of Related Science and Technology Platforms: First episode psychosis clinics, neuroimaging, bioinformatics, genotyping, gene sequencing, chip development, molecular, cellular and animal models | |||
|
2 |
Genetic predictors and neurological mechanisms related to clinical outcomes of treatment in bipolar disorders. |
5 years |
$10M |
| Related Science and Technology Platforms: Same as Question #1. | |||
|
3 |
Genetic predictors and neurological mechanisms related to outcomes of treatment in ADHD. |
5 years |
$10M |
| Related Science and Technology Platforms: ADHD clinics; additional requirements similar to #s 1 and 2 with an emphasis on cognition. Development of diagnostic chips taking into account ethnicities, age, etc., into predictive algorithms to diagnose illness. | |||
Discussion
[ top of page ]
| Basic biomedical, e.g., genetic, molecular, cellular, tissue physiology | Applied clinical, e.g., drugs, devices, social intervention | Health systems, health services, e.g., health care quality, cost-effectiveness | Societal, cultural and environmental influences on health and the health of populations |
|---|---|---|---|
|
X X |
X |
X |
X |
Comments:
| Question | Timeline | Resource Requirements | |
|---|---|---|---|
|
1 |
Identify, refine and validate clinically-valid endophenotypes of major psychiatric/CNS disorders, e.g., biochemical, cellular, imaging, behavioural, in clinical and non-clinical populations. |
5-10 years |
$40M |
| Related Science and Technology Platforms: Biochemical, cellular, endocrinological measurements, functional imaging, e.g., functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI), Positron Emission Tomography (PET). | |||
|
2 |
The role of personality traits or dimensions in relationship to Axis I (major psychiatric) disorders. |
5 years |
$40M |
| Related Science and Technology Platforms: Family collection for suitable samples; advances in epidemiological and statistical methods. | |||
|
3 |
Environmental effects on gene expression and the genetic bases and responses to environmental factors, e.g., effects of life events, emotional responses, social factors, physical and psychological trauma, toxins, biopsychosocial factors, etc. |
5-10 years |
$40M |
| Related Science and Technology Platforms: Advances in statistical methods for genes and the environment; biochemical and imaging techniques. | |||
This challenge includes the full spectrum of clinical training from basic research to clinical application and integration of all its aspects. Other components are evidence-based medicine and health outcomes (and particularly work with evidence-based practitioners), health economics and impact on the health care system, ethical and legal research. A coordinated national effort (e.g., clinical consortium) is integral to this support, which also involves experimental therapeutics with private sector involvement and genetic testing. There are significant federal/provincial/territorial jurisdictional issues that affect knowledge transfer to the front lines of the health care system. Consumer groups need to be consulted regarding knowledge translation issues to help improve the efficiency of uptake. Definitional issues also exist in relation to terms such as knowledge transfer/translation and evidence-based research. There are also ethical issue related to study controls.
Clinical applications and knowledge translation could be improved within the research community through the establishment of a CIHR sub-institute focused on psychiatric genetics to provide support for consortium building, e.g., through the National Centres of Excellence (NCE), Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI ), and a yearly retreat. This approach could also be used within other CIHR institutes.
Externally, the new CIHR Centre for Health Innovation may be a means of promoting knowledge translation, e.g., through best practices and partnerships with the Canadian Medical Association, IPA, non-governmental organizations (NGO), the Canadian Genetic Diseases Network (CGDN), Health Canada, UK Knowledge Parts, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Practitioners could benefit from the creation of an NIH-style evidence-based practice centre. The evidence-based movement has not paid much attention to genetics and genomics as they don't see its clinical relevance. Working with evidence-based practitioners to educate them about the usefulness of this type of work is essential.
[ top of page ]
This challenge includes enabling tools and technologies such as research sample banks, and databases, and providing sufficient human and financial resources to support their development and maintenance.
Research sample banks are required for brain tissue, cell lines, DNA and animal models (live or frozen specimens). These banks would include new data collections and also the expansion of existing sample banks to include comprehensive data on phenotypes, ethnicity, etc. A central coordinating body would ensure a common format for all collections as well as standardized procedures and phenotypes.
Development would be ongoing. There is an estimated $20M startup cost to organize existing information, create standards and establish the organizing body.
Ensuring access to data is essential for researchers. A "one stop shop" web site for research resources could be developed, e.g., expanding CIHR's ResearchNet as a platform, perhaps through a link from ResearchNet to a site containing research resources such as software and analysis tools. This web site is intended as a single location for resources such as software and analysis tools, bioinformatics support for health practitioners and researchers, and a common CV. Resources could either be located on the web site or indicated through links to other applicable web sites. The current cost for ResearchNet is $50M over 5 years. Additional costs (if any) associated with an expansion to include the research resource web site outlined above need to be determined by CIHR.
A national electronic health record database, as recommended in the Romanov report and being investigated by Canada Health Infoway, should be expanded to include information relevant for research in psychiatric genetics, neurogenetics and brain genomics, e.g., drug response, test results, ethnicity for genetics studies, etc., would be useful. The research community should lobby to have the national database include comprehensive information relevant to research and to ensure its accessibility to researchers. Other existing models include Stroke and Violent Offenders databases. There are, however, many privacy issues associated with such efforts.
Included in this group are non-invasive methods to assess brain function such as imaging; human and animal models including novel brain markers (markers of anatomical pathways, signaling pathways, etc.) and novel phenotypes; and modulating gene and protein activity. It is critical to make tools and technologies accessible to researchers, such as through centralized institutes with a particular research focus where technology and researchers can be located. The development of innovative technologies, particularly those for which Canada is a leader (e.g., nanotechnologies and laser technologies) is essential for the success of Canadian researchers in this field, and to make Canada competitive and be recognized in the international arena
Participants emphasized the importance of adequate funding to develop innovative technologies, a research samples database and a resource database, e.g., funding for current technologies and platforms and accessibility of current technologies. In addition, the recruitment and retention of diverse expertise to this field (including statisticians, physicists, chemists, material scientists, computational scientists, and mathematicians) is essential to its long-term success.
Discussion
[ top of page ]
A draft workshop report will be reviewed by the Consultation Planning Committee before distribution to participants for their comments. Once finalized, the report will be used by both the CIHR INMHA and IG for research policy and planning purposes. It will also be used as a basis for the development of the white paper in the coming months.
The Consultation Planning Committee will review alternative names for this initiative based on discussions at the consultation. Participants noted definitional issues such as whether genetics includes genomics. There was general agreement that genetics is the science of the gene, while genomics is the science of the genome. Another concern was that genetics is often associated with the "small" and genomics with the "big" and that this has carried over into the area of funding. Most were comfortable with the use of "genetics" in the context of alternative names.
In closing, Drs. Rod McInnes and Rémi Quirion thanked everyone and remarked that one of the positive outcomes of a research consultation is to meet with other colleagues and discuss areas of mutual interest. They noted the number of projects identified by participants and the commitments of their Institutes to partner with Genome Canada and other organizations to help make them happen. They reminded participants that the work is just starting; the research agenda depends on them for success. Drs. McInnes and Quirion will work together in the next few months to identify some key people to move the agenda forward, with the possibility of an annual scientific meeting. They urged participants to write to politicians and community leaders, to thank them for past support and remind them of the value of continued, augmented resources for health research.
Drs. McInnes and Quirion also encouraged participants to consider the following opportunities and to contact them if they need further information about CIHR-related matters:
[ top of page ]
|
Dr. Paul Albert
|
Dr. Eva Chow |
|
Dr. Martin Alda
|
Dr. Paul De Koninck |
|
Ms. Catherine Armour |
Dr. Louise Desjardins |
|
Dr. Anne Bassett
|
Dr. Claude Gravel Centre de recherche Université de Laval Rovert-Giffard 2601, de la Canardière Beauport, QC G1J 2G3 Tel. 418-663-5747 Fax 418-663-8756 Email: claude.gravel@psa.ulaval.ca |
| Dr. Mark Bisby Canadian Institutes of Health Research 410 Laurier Street West, 9th Floor P.L. 4209A Ottawa, ON Tel. 613-954-1805 Email: mbisby@cihr-irsc.gc.ca |
Dr. William Honer |
|
Dr. Kerry Jang
|
Dr. Rod McInnes Institute of Genetics Canadian Institutes of Health Research 123 Edward Street Toronto, ON M5G 1E2 Tel. 416-813-7671 Fax 416-813-7673 Email: rodig@sickkids.ca |
| Dr. Ridha Joober Department of Genetics McGill University Stewart Biology Bldg Montreal, QC H3A 2K6 Tel. 514-762-3048 ext 2404 Email: ridha.joober@mcgill.ca |
Dr. Zul Merali
|
|
Dr. James Kennedy
|
Dr. Roberta Palmour Department of Psychiatry McGill University Pine 1033 Montreal, QC H3A 2K6 Tel. 514-398-7303 Email: mc23@musica.mcgill.ca |
| Dr. Blair Leavitt Centre for Molecular Medicine and Therapeutics 2020-980 West 28th Avenue Vancouver, BC V5Z 4H4 Tel. 604-875-3801 Fax 604-875-3840 Email: bleavitt@cmmt.ubc.ca |
Dr. Andrew Paterson |
|
Dr. Alex Mackenzie |
Dr. Daniel Pérusse Unité de recherche bio-psychosociale (GRIP) Centre de recherche de l'Hopital Sainte-Justine Bloc 5, Etage A 3175 Cote Sainte-Catherine Montreal, QC H3T 1C5 Tel. 514-343-4931 ext. 4040 Fax 514-345-2176 Email: daniel.perusse@umontreal.ca |
| Dr. Michel Maziade Centre de recherche Université Laval Robert-Giffard 2601 de la Canardiere Beauport, QC G1J 2G3 Tel. 418-663-5744 Fax 418-663-9540 Email: michel.maziade@psa.ulaval.ca |
Dr. Tracey Petryshen
|
|
Dr. Anthony Phillips
|
Dr. Walter Rushlow University of Western Ontario Dept. of Psychiatry, LHSC-UC, 339 Windermere Rd London, ON N6A 5A5 Tel. 519-663-2986 x 32986 Fax 519-663-3935 Email: wrushlow@uwo.ca |
|
Dr. Shiv Prasad
|
Dr. Steve Scherer The Hospital for Sick Children 555 University Avenue, 9107 Toronto, ON M5G 1X8 Tel. 416-813-7613 Fax 416-813-8319 Email: steve@genet.sickkids.on.ca |
|
Dr. Remi Quirion
|
Dr. Elizabeth Simpson |
|
Dr. Ron Reid
|
Dr. Weihong Song University of British Columbia 2255 Wesbrook Mall Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3 Tel. 604-822-8019 Fax 604-822-7981 Email: weihong@interchange.ubc.ca |
| Ms. Stephanie Roberston Canadian Institutes of Health Research 410 Laurier Avenue West, 9th Floor Postal Locator 4209A Ottawa, ON K1A 0W9 Tel. 613-954-0533 Email: srobertson@cihr-irsc.gc.ca |
Dr. Peter Szatmari |
|
Dr. Guy Rouleau |
Dr. Gustavo Turecki Douglas Hospital McGill University 6875 LaSalle Blvd Verdun, QC H4H 1R3 Tel. 514-761-6131 loc. 22369 Fax 514-762-3011 Email: gustavo.turecki@mcgill.ca |
[ top of page ]
