| CIHR Institutes |
| IG Home |
| About IG |
| IG Funding |
| IG Publications & Resources |
| IG Calendar of Events |
| Contact IG |
Organized by : University of Alberta, The Hospital for Sick Children
Facilitated by : Kaleidoscope Consulting
On July 19 & 20th, 2002, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) convened approximately 30 chemists and bio-chemists, from Canadian universities and the private sector, to define the framework and to set priorities for the strategic development of a new CIHR initiative. Recognizing the significant benefit that the interface of chemistry and biology can have on health research, the Institutes are taking a proactive step in catalyzing action toward this end. This undertaking is about more than funding research projects; it is about increasing awareness and facilitating new liaisons within two strong, but too often separate subcultures.
The two day workshop process identified ways to initiate a new chemistry-oriented program within the Canadian research context, and more specifically within CIHR. While the initial program will occur under the auspices of the Institute of Genetics, other CIHR Institutes have expressed interest in partnerships. The initiative will be guided by the mission and mandate of the CIHR and the Institute of Genetics; and therefore, it will focus on the interface of chemistry and biology in health research.
This report presents a synthesis of several discussions:
Workshop participants felt that indicators of success of a chemistry/biology interface in health research would be:
In order to facilitate meaningful advances in the development of a consistent practice of interface and not sporadic application, strategic leadership would be required by both CIHR and the research community particularly in the following three areas:
Participants were asked if there were essential parameters that would/should guide the development of the chemistry/biology interface and eventually research projects. They felt that regardless of the type of project, priority should be given to projects or programs that are:
SYNERGISTIC:
INNOVATIVE:
ACCESSIBLE:
DEVELOPMENTAL:
In the process of exploring the potential of a chemistry/biology interface in health research and in defining a program framework, workshop participants identified a number of issues that they felt could impact the success of the initiative and made recommendations for how they could be addressed.
| Issue | Recommendation |
| Understanding what is intended and what is required for successful participation | - CIHR should support significant and lasting advancement by defining and communicating a purpose, long term vision, goals, process and commitment. - CIHR needs to clearly communicate to chemists the definition of a credible chemistry/biology interface. |
| Interface of two sub- cultures |
- CIHR should recognize that the interface of two subcultures will take time, communication and patience. The institutes should not look for immediate pay-off and results. |
| The perceived risk associated with not having a pure discipline (bio-chemist) | - Encourage universities/department heads to play a role in valuing students with collaborative research experience. |
| Competition for funding | - The creation of this program should not dilute existing research funding resources and programs by reallocating funding from existing programs or duplicating existing programs (CIHR or NSERC). |
| Objectivity and quality in the peer review process | - When establishing the peer review panel, seek the counsel of people who have demonstrated world class competence including both biologists and chemists on the review panel. - Create a CIHR Chemical/Biology Grant Panel. |
| Accessibility to funding by small research groups or single researchers | - Programs should support researchers across Canada, not only major networks. - The funding program should focus on the interface of the sciences and not force people to collaborate in an artificial or synthetic way. |
| Onerous granting requirements | - The detail of the application process should be relative to the size of the grant available. |
| Awareness of the CIHR Chemistry Biology Initiative | - Create a Chemistry/Biology Planning Priorities Committee. - Define ways to increase face-to-face cross discipline exposure/contact. - "Inform us that we can be players." |
| Lack of awareness about CIHR in the chemistry community | - CIHR needs to do a better job of informing the science community of what CIHR is about. |
| Comparison to NIH | - Build on success of other models. |
Five potential program elements were explored by the participants. The following notes present a synopsis of the discussions:
1. Training (under and post-graduate), Fellowships, Career Development (exchange programs and/or summer studentships):
Human resource development is essential to creating an environment that promotes the integration or interface of chemistry and biology and increasing the numbers of highly qualified personnel (HQP). Specifically, face-to-face communication is absolutely critical for long term changes in attitudes.
Currently there is no formal mechanism to facilitate this interaction. Some examples of format processes are:
Funds would be required to cover travel costs and some research costs. (i.e. $20,000. for longer term visits and $5,000. for one-two week visits.)
The challenge to this initiative will be awareness and value. People need to know about and they need to believe it will be worth the effort. Participants that engage in chemistry/biology integration should be recognized.
2. Infrastructure:
Workshop participants who explored the question of how infrastructure could support the development and evolution of the chemistry/biology interface presented that an incubator type of facility at individual institutions would be beneficial. Basically, this facility would have personnel within a defined facility who would train and operate the training facility to facilitate the transition process. This concept has a strong cross-over with the training component.
The potential of such a facility would be that it could:
The scale of the facility would need to be appropriate to the problem or situation and institutions would be encouraged to use whatever sources they had for equipment. This is a small scale project focusing on the training aspect. The term of employment for the trainers would be relative to the process. Funding would be required for start-up ($300,000.) and operation ($150,000. /year)
The challenge to this concept would be that of culture. Chemists would need to overcome a barrier and be confident that their work in this area will be competent and critical work.
3. Communications/ Knowledge Transference:
Participants who developed the communication component felt that it is necessary to expose chemists to biology's problems, abilities and techniques (and vice versa). To achieve this they suggested:
The challenges will be:
4. Joint Funding Programs:
This workgroup explored how joint funding programs could catalyze the chemistry/biology interface in health research by increasing the funding base from other internal or external sources. They believed it is crucial to leverage resources and increase the ability to fund more and/or larger projects. In addition, joint funding will increase the awareness of and exposure to interface programs.
A challenge to private sector funding in a joint project is to ensure that the parameters or "strings" do not interfere with excellent and quality research. Ideally investment would be with "no strings attached." A second risk would be the loss of funding and the stranding of a research project.
5. Industry Liaisons (User Sector, Partnerships)
Small group participants suggested that fostering industry or user sector partnerships and improving communication and collaboration would have financial, training and health provision benefits to Canada and Canadians. They stressed that the industrial connection is key to bottom line benefit to Canada.
Specifically there is potential for:
Some ideas for initiating or supporting relationships that have a specific chemistry/biology interface:
The challenge will be to provide a framework that is broad enough to attract interest without being onerous in paperwork and details.
After all of the subgroups presented their insights for the five focus areas, participants were asked to rank the areas in order of importance to "kick-start" or catalyze action on the chemistry/biology interface. This did not represent funding priorities as CIHR explained that there are a variety of ways to fund these initiatives.
Priority One: Communication, Knowledge Transfer
Workshop participants agreed the key initiating action was to communicate with Canadian chemists (and other stakeholders) about the need, benefits and opportunity for endeavors in the chemistry/biology interface in health research. Some suggestions are:
Priority Two: Career Development, Training and Fellowship:
Career development and training or facilitating the development of human resources and interaction was seen as the next step in catalyzing the interface. In this area, participants were asked to identify their priorities for CIHR funding. As a result participants felt there was a need for funding in the top two recommendations
After the workshop, an online discussion was held, with a limited amount of participation, about funding chemistry summer students to work in biology labs. Eleven workshop participants responded to the query and ten of them supported the concept. However, they felt that the idea was included in the list above and there was no need to establish a separate category.
Follow-up Actions:
Workshop participants did not assign a high priority to the Infrastructure, Industrial Liaison, or Joint Funding element as catalysts to the interface. They did see them as supports to the initiative. Some participants strongly felt that investment should not be made in the area of Industrial Liaison. Basically, in a forced choice situation, they felt that the first order of business needed to be Communication and Human Resource Development (Training) and to a much lesser extent-Infrastructure. Participants recognized that the Joint Funding initiative is a core process of the Institutes and therefore, did not need special attention. They did state that joint funding for the chemistry/biology interface should be specifically targeted and funded.
The purpose of this workshop was to identify and prioritize the types of initiatives or investments that would catalyze a meaningful interface of chemistry and biology in health research. Workshop participants unequivocally saw the potential benefits for research (and the opportunity for research funding), but they also recognized that there were significant barriers to be addressed if the potential is to be realized. The key start-up role that they saw for CIHR is that of creating awareness of the concept and fostering an environment where the concept can be more fully explored. They also identified the need for special funding. A critical element to the success of this transition is an effective and balanced peer review process.
The priorities they identified were Communication and Career Development, but also stated that the priorities could potentially change as the process evolved. And finally, they stressed that the evolution would take time as there are two solitudes of research that must firstly see the benefit of working together and then learn to work together.
