I just heard what the previous presenter mentioned. I moved to Florida about a year ago. I was initially very much involved as scientific director of the Canadian vaccine network. It was funded by the national centres of excellence to promote the development of the potential collaboration with the Gates Foundation. Some time in October 2003, Dr. Plummer, Dr. Singh, who was at the time the head of the infection immunity institute of CIHR, and I all went to meet the Gates Foundation and entertain the possibility of developing a joint centre between the Gates Foundation and Canada on the development of an HIV vaccine. So that's the way things started.
There was a very good response by the Canadian government at the time. By 2007 there was a signed agreement between the Prime Minister and Bill Gates regarding this mega-collaboration.
I was very much involved in putting together the strategic plan of the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise. It is a network of independent institutions, including CIHR. All of those institutions are focused on developing a vaccine for HIV. Each one provides their expertise and contributes toward establishing an HIV vaccine. Let's say some place in the U.S. provides some pre-clinical work. In this global HIV enterprise, everybody brings a contribution.
Because there was a very well-identified paucity in vaccine-lot production, we thought of Canada specifically, especially with companies like GSK and Sanofi Pasteur that had vaccine production plants here in Canada. We thought that would be a very significant contribution from Canada. In fact, during those discussions, Sanofi Pasteur was very much involved. At the end they pulled out of the game, but we still managed to put together four very important proposals that were very well reviewed. They highlighted the Canadian expertise in vaccine development, from the basic research to the pre-clinical development, all the way to clinical production. I think the availability of this vaccine-lot pilot plant is going to be a catalyst in fostering Canadian expertise, improving it, and attracting top-notch investigators.
As I mentioned in the press when that decision was made, unfortunately it was a missed opportunity. We went through the whole process, which lasted almost two years, where people really invested a lot of their time and effort and brought highly credible proposals to the table, but in the end everything just fizzled out for reasons I'm still trying to figure out.
It's a missed opportunity, not only because I think Canada has to make a contribution toward HIV vaccine development. You all know that for the past year we've been hit with this swine flu. When we were discussing putting together a vaccine production plant, it was very clear that there was going to be a focus on HIV, but the vaccine plant was also going to be available for any emerging disease epidemic.
When we were talking about this, it was about bio-events. There was all the talk about anthrax and pox, so we all agreed that it was also going to be available in case Canada faced that kind of epidemic. You all know that last year we were grappling with the possibility that you might be hit with a swine flu epidemic. We were all very worried about when the vaccine was going to be ready, and we know there were delays in testing the vaccine to make sure it was safe. Having a facility like this one would certainly help accelerate the implementation of a vaccine for the Canadian population.
At the end of the day, I think the decision is questionable on multiple fronts. First, it fails to put together a cohesive network of scientists, all the way from basic research to clinical development to clinical trials.
Second, I think Canada has to contribute to HIV vaccine development, as Don Gerson mentioned. I think it's a moral obligation that you owe the world community. We have committed to doing this, and I don't understand why we have backtracked.
Third, having this facility would help not only HIV vaccine development; it was meant to be available for any epidemic. That means that Canada was going to be independent from GSK or other companies that might take time to develop a vaccine or might make a decision not to eventually develop a vaccine for a specific disease. That was going to put us in a position of being independent of having other people making decisions for us.
Those three reasons, again, make you question the validity of the decision. I really would like to understand why the decision was made. I would like to contribute to any path that might lead to reversing the decision or convincing the government that the decision has to be modified.