Two critical studies are currently underway in the Canadian parliament, yet they remain largely unnoticed. These studies have the potential to shape the future of medical innovation, pandemic preparedness, and access to life-saving medications.
The first study, conducted by the Standing Committee on Science and Research (SRSR), is titled "Private Sector Investment in Research and Development in Canada." However, a closer look reveals a different agenda. The study's true focus is on commercializing innovations from Canadian universities to boost the country's economy. In other words, it's about transferring publicly funded research to private hands.
This approach is in line with Canada's recent emphasis on R&D as an economic driver. But it raises serious concerns. Publicly funded research at public universities has often been handed over to private interests, who then control access and pricing. This control can determine who gets access to medications, with potentially life-or-death consequences.
The second study, soon to begin at the Standing Committee on Health (HESA), is on "Canada's Pharmaceutical Sovereignty." This issue came to the forefront during the COVID-19 pandemic, when Canada faced shortages of existing drugs and lacked access to new vaccines. The core problem was Canada's limited capacity to produce these products domestically.
The pandemic led to significant public investment in domestic biomanufacturing. However, much of this investment subsidized private sector companies, including major multinationals. Ceding control to private actors, many based outside Canada, seems counterintuitive to achieving pharmaceutical sovereignty.
It's crucial for these committees to recognize that while public and pharmaceutical industry interests sometimes align, there are also key areas of divergence. Measures transferring public funds or publicly funded R&D to the private sector in health-related areas must be carefully considered to ensure public investment benefits the public first and foremost. Canada has largely failed to take such steps, to its detriment.
Take, for example, the University of British Columbia. During the COVID-19 response, this university was the birthplace of multiple important innovations, such as the monoclonal antibody treatment bamlanivimab and the lipid nanoparticle technology used in mRNA vaccines. These innovations originated from publicly funded, fundamental research at a public university. After being spun off into private companies, they received further public funding for their development. Yet, the ultimate benefits accrued primarily to private interests. AbCellera, one of these companies, became Canada's most valuable biotech company, while Canada paid tens of millions of dollars for the drug.
Canada also funded the World Health Organization's (WHO) mRNA Tech Transfer Hub in South Africa to reverse-engineer mRNA vaccine technology, as pharmaceutical companies refused to voluntarily participate in technology transfer to increase production for low- and middle-income countries. This highlights the challenges Canada faced in accessing mRNA vaccines and the need for access conditions tied to government or university funding.
Relying on private industry to bring products to market disadvantages products with high public health impact but low commercial value. Numerous medicines considered Essential Medicines by the WHO, including those for deadly diseases like tuberculosis, are not sold in Canada due to their perceived lack of profitability by the pharmaceutical industry. As a result, patients face significant challenges accessing these essential medications in a timely manner.
The same challenges exist for developing new treatments and vaccines. Canadian research breakthroughs often face obstacles in getting out of the lab due to a dependence on profit-driven commercial interests. For instance, the first effective vaccine against the most common form of Ebola originated from Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg. However, the vaccine's journey to market involved a complex saga, including licensing to a company with no prior market experience, sublicensing to another company, and finally, a high-priced market entry. This highlights the need for Canada to address market failures rather than rely solely on industry.
The past few years have seen multiple outbreaks of serious diseases, such as Lassa Fever, Marburg virus, and the Sudan form of Ebola virus. Promising vaccine candidates for these diseases have originated from Canada's NML, but further advancement of these innovations has come from foreign governments, not Canada.
The Government of Canada has an opportunity to shift its focus from subsidizing a lucrative industry driven by profit-focused boardrooms to filling the gaps in domestic healthcare. It must be more proactive in identifying these gaps and basing its actions on health needs rather than industry desires.
Canada's biomanufacturing investments, while significant, have failed to effectively assert sovereignty over how biomanufacturing capacity is used. The publicly owned Biologics Manufacturing Centre (BMC) in Montreal, which began operations in 2022, has been sitting idle while receiving annual funding of $17 million. The government's approach of operating the BMC as a contract manufacturer for commercial interests has not worked, as the deal with Novavax demonstrates.
With a comparatively small investment, Canada could meet domestic and global needs for important products like mAb treatments needed during outbreaks. Some of these treatments could be allocated to Canada's biosecurity stockpiles, while the rest could be used to address global health crises before they reach Canadian shores.
Canada must abandon its failing strategy of appeasing private commercial interests in the hope of ensuring affordable access to medications. Let's hope these two committees prioritize patients over profits in their support for Canadian R&D and biomanufacturing, exercising Canada's pharmaceutical sovereignty in a way that benefits its citizens.
