Two parliamentary studies, currently under the radar, have the potential to significantly impact medical innovation and access to life-saving treatments. These studies, conducted by Parliamentary Standing Committees, highlight a critical issue: the Canadian government's focus on public investment in research and development (R&D) and biomanufacturing as a means to boost private enterprise, rather than prioritizing public health.
The first study, led 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 its true intent: to explore ways to commercialize innovations from Canadian universities, aiming to strengthen Canada's innovative economy. In essence, it's about transferring publicly funded research to private hands.
This approach is concerning, especially when considering the frequent practice of handing over publicly funded research at public universities to private interests. These private entities then control who can access the research outcomes and at what cost, which can have life-or-death consequences for patients.
The second study, soon to be undertaken by the Standing Committee on Health (HESA), focuses on "Canada's Pharmaceutical Sovereignty." The COVID-19 pandemic brought this issue to the forefront, exposing Canada's vulnerabilities in accessing essential drugs and vaccines. Canada's limited capacity for domestic production and its reliance on other countries for both finished medicines and their ingredients were starkly highlighted.
The pandemic led to significant public investment in domestic biomanufacturing, but much of this was in the form of subsidies to private sector companies, including major multinationals. Ceding control to private actors, many based outside Canada, seems counterintuitive to achieving true pharmaceutical sovereignty.
It's crucial that these committees recognize the alignment and divergence of interests between the public and the pharmaceutical industry. Public funds and publicly funded R&D must be transferred to the private sector sensibly, ensuring that public investment benefits the public first and foremost. Canada has largely failed to take such steps, to its own detriment.
Take, for example, the University of British Columbia's role in developing important innovations during the COVID-19 response, such as the monoclonal antibody treatment bamlanivimab and the lipid nanoparticle technology used in mRNA vaccines. These innovations, born from publicly funded research at a public university, were spun off into private companies that received further public funding for their development. Ultimately, the benefits accrued primarily to private interests, with AbCellera becoming Canada's most valuable biotech company, while Canada paid millions for the drug.
Canada's lack of access conditions tied to funding for lipid nanoparticle technology resulted in challenges accessing mRNA vaccines and even funding the WHO's mRNA Tech Transfer Hub in South Africa to reverse-engineer the same technology it had initially funded. This reliance on private industry disadvantages products with significant public health impact but limited commercial value.
Some health researchers suggest that public investment in biomanufacturing facilities at public universities is to allow companies to benefit from premium pricing, justifying high upfront costs with reduced long-term healthcare expenses. While this may make sense for private enterprises, it's a confusing argument for the public purse, which pays twice: first for research to lower treatment costs and then for a premium to access the results of that publicly funded research.
This reliance on private industry also disadvantages products with high public health impact but low commercial value. Numerous WHO-recognized Essential Medicines, including those for deadly diseases like tuberculosis, are not sold in Canada due to their perceived lack of profitability by the pharmaceutical industry. Patients face challenges accessing these essential drugs, raising questions about Canada's effective exercise of pharmaceutical sovereignty.
The same challenges apply to 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. The saga of the first effective vaccine against Ebola, which originated from Canada's National Microbiology Laboratory (NML) in Winnipeg, highlights how Canada should focus on filling market failures rather than relying on industry.
The past few years have seen multiple outbreaks of serious diseases, all with promising vaccine candidates originating at Canada's NML. However, recent funding to advance 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 to filling the gaps at home that commercial interests overlook.
Canada's biomanufacturing investments, while significant, have failed to assert effective sovereignty over how biomanufacturing capacity is used. The publicly owned Biologics Manufacturing Centre (BMC) in Montreal, which has been idle since its launch in 2022, receiving $17 million annually to stay operational, is a prime example. The government's approach of operating the BMC as a contract manufacturer for commercial interests has proven unsuccessful.
With a comparatively small investment, Canada could meet domestic and global needs for important products like mAb treatments during outbreaks, ensuring some for Canada's biosecurity stockpiles and the rest 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 essential medicines. Let's hope these two Committees recognize the need for Canada to exercise its pharmaceutical sovereignty in a way that prioritizes patients over profits, supporting Canadian R&D and biomanufacturing with a focus on public health.
