Evidence of meeting #68 for Health in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was nanotechnology.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Dany Morin NDP Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC
Thank you for your answer.
That leads me to the second part of my question.
John R. McDougall, president of the NRC, confirmed that the changes made to the council would affect the type of research that the NRC will conduct. He mentioned that there would be less scientific and basic research and more research on the impact on the industry and commercial sale.
Do our two witnesses believe that this new mission for NRC is good?
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I just want to comment.
I think the way it went about converting the NRC from basic research to applied research was not right. As scientists, you're trained to think in a certain way. All of a sudden you make this change within a year. It's hard for people to make that change along the way. It's kind of like a fish out of water, right? I think that's one of the challenges with researchers at the NRC at this point. I have talked to a number of them and we're thinking about collaboration. That's one aspect.
The second aspect is that everyone's moving to applied research, but eventually, when you don't understand how something works, it will dry up. How do you build computers? The reason you have computers is that people figured out how electrons work. If you don't know how electrons work, how can you build a computer? You can't change the flow of electrons.
Part of the challenge now with the NRC, in my opinion, is how to balance enough fundamental research to allow them to lead, but then have an applied focus, where they can actually translate these things, right?
Again, if I was head, I would have done it in a five-year to seven-year stream, slowly evolving the process so that it becomes less of a heartache for the current scientists. You can't make scientists be something they're not, which is really what the challenge of the system is at this point for the NRC.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Thank you very much, Dr. Chan and Dr. Morin.
My side of the House has given me a chance to ask a question. It will be our last question because our time is running out.
You talked about cancer and nanotechnology. You talked about how with early detection, you have a better chance of survival. You said with targeted therapy you have fewer side effects. As we know, when toxins go into the body, the issue is that sometimes the cure can be worse than the cancer, if that's understood. It can affect the heart, it can do all sorts of things.
You said that cancer nanotechnology would improve surgical precision. When cancers like lymphomas move, it's almost impossible to find them. How would nanotechnology apply to that? Could this be helpful, in terms of causing someone to live? Has it become so advanced that at this time they can see the tumour sites throughout the body?
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Are you asking the question from the point of view of metastasis, once the tumours move, how would nanotechnology help?
December 4th, 2012 / 12:50 p.m.
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Once a tumour starts to break apart, once it starts to move and regrow, the surface of these cells contains a unique fingerprint, so there are molecules that are unique to it. With nanos, if you know what those molecules are, you can colour them with, let's say, the five different colours that we show and you can inject a bolus, a combination of these markers that have different targets on it. It'll travel through the body and then hopefully it'll find the different targets and you can colour-label them. That's one example of how it's used.
This is where basic research becomes very important, because we still don't fully understand how the particles move within the body once you inject them. We know they can move very freely because of size. Your body is basically full of compartments. It can access certain things. We don't understand that. If you develop this thing, it may also have side effects. If it goes into compartments that are protected, that you normally can't access, it causes problems.
The fundamental studies to understand how to design the particles will allow you to better design your structures. But, at the end of the day, it's when nano combines with biology. The genomics guys and the proteomics guys need to find these targets. We now hook this up to our particle, inject it together, combine it into the system, which then allows us to light up the disease.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
It's a rare combination to see a scientist who's developed a business, and it's very good, very intriguing to see that happen. As a scientist and as a business person, when you were talking about targeting your research and trying to get a grip on.... As I heard you say earlier, there are no really big nanotechnology industries here in Canada. You've come from the U.S. and you now live in Toronto. From what I heard you say this morning, there are limited opportunities, so how do you build that business?
Federally we've put a lot of money into cancer over the years. I'm wondering, if you focused on something like cancer—one in four people in this country will be touched by cancer—couldn't you get other people in other businesses? Have you ever considered that? It seems to me, from your demonstration today, that you have a clear idea of how you could develop this nanotechnology in the field of cancer. Am I right or wrong?
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I have 20 researchers in my lab right now. We're focusing on two areas: one is diagnostics and one is in vivo cancer application. It's very clear, the directions are there. Because we work in an academic system, students graduate. By the time you train them well enough, they move on to do something else, so I keep on restarting the process every few years.
The way we do research in my lab is that everyone comes in and we're solving one set or block. When that's done we go to the next block in the next four years. The reason we have to do it that way is that CIHR grants, NSERC grants, are not enough to be able to move in that direction. My average CIHR grant is about $100,000, which will fund a couple of students, but you need a mass of people. That's one challenge.
The second challenge comes down to people. I'm on a CIHR review panel, which is why I'm stepping out to be here. Not that many nano cancer people have the expertise to review these things. A molecular biologist may not understand this aspect of cancer application. This is why they brought me in to do the nano. But if I'm applying, there might not be a person who understands this particular category. From that perspective, what we've done is piece a bunch of grants together to have enough money to move from step one to step two. I have about 13 grants right now. If you average 13 grants, each one is maybe about $50,000 or $55,000; combined it's about $600,000. That's my budget for 20 people.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
No, I fully understand, and it's very exciting to see what you're doing, but I'm just thinking that when you look at businesses wanting to invest, businesses do want to earn the dollars for their own development. How rigorously have you also approached businesses to help out? Do you have an opportunity to do that? Or how do you do it?
Professor, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I actually have U.S. companies interested, not Canadian companies. One of the companies is one of the first companies in the U.S. that the Gates Foundation invested in. I'm in continual talks with their CFO and their COO, plus some work.... It's not on paper, but at one time they were interested in moving to Toronto to work with us on some of this. Again, the problem is that I couldn't get matching money. NSERC has matching programs, but you have to be an established Canadian company even though you'd be bringing money into Canada.
They actually support one of the cancer nanocentres in North Carolina. They thought, oh, maybe it would a good idea to do them both, Canada and North Carolina, so that we can combine the two infrastructures to bring some of these technologies forward.
So far, most companies have approached me based on our publications. They see our papers, they need expertise, so they call me up to work with them.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joy Smith
Both of you, and all our guests today, have contributed in such a major way to our health committee. It would be really nice to have you back sometime, if that's the will of the committee. It's been a very interesting day today, and I thank you.
With that, I have to dismiss the committee. I'm so grateful we didn't have any bells ringing today.
The committee is dismissed, with our thanks.