Institute of Infection and Immunity 31st Advisory Board Meeting
September 21-22, 2010Sheraton Hotel Newfoundland
St. John’s, NL
Draft Minutes
| Present: | L. Barreto, E. Brown, R. Duncan, P. Ernst, A. Fernandes, M. Grant, A. Jevnikar, C. Kaposy, M. Karmali, V. Loo, C. Power, J. Stankova, B. Ward, G. Wu |
|---|---|
| Staff: | J. Bray, S. Desnoyers, D. Hartell, A. Matejcic, M. Ouellette, M. Perrault, J. Raven |
| Regrets: | S. Jones |
| Guest: | S. Sternthal (Public Health Agency of Canada) |
Agenda and Minutes
C. Power moved to approve the agenda for the meeting. The motion was unanimously approved.
G. Wu suggested a change to the minutes from the May 6-7, 2010 IAB meeting regarding the New Investigator Forum. Motion to accept revised minutes (B. Ward/ G. Wu).
Scientific Director’s Report
CIHR is undertaking a new procedure for developing strategic initiatives, as they received feedback from the community that there were too many RFAs. In line with the CIHR Health Research Roadmap, 13 concept papers were developed by the Institutes and submitted for evaluation by the Sub-committee on Planning and Priorities (SPP). SPP met on June 21st, 2010 to evaluate the submitted concept papers, and to decide which should move forward to business case development. The selected papers are: Clinical Trial Networks/ Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes), Personalized Medicine (Institute of Cancer Research), Evidence-informed Healthcare Renewal (Institute of Health Services and Policy Research), Pathways to Health Equity for Aboriginal Peoples (Institute of Aboriginal Peoples’ Health), International Collaborative Research Strategy for Alzheimer’s Disease (Institute of Aging), Canadian Epigenetics, Environment and Health Research Network (Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction), and Inflammation in Chronic Disease (Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis). Those selected for business case development will be Level 3 initiatives (a multi-institute/branch initiative intended to focus on medium to longer term activities that may be renewable) with investments of at least $5 million per year that offer larger funding programs to the community.
III is a co-lead on the Inflammation in Chronic Disease paper, but the Preparedness to Threats paper led by III was not selected for further development at this time. Research Priority 4 as outlined in the CIHR Roadmap (prepare for an respond to existing and emerging threats to health) is not directly addressed in any of the selected concept papers, which is unusual since CIHR usually garners a lot of attention for its response to infectious disease crises. The possibility of developing a level 1 (priority announcement) or level 2 (a single or multi-institute/branch initiative intended to focus on short to medium term initiatives, in the range of $2 million per year for up to 5 years) initiative to address microbial threats to health was discussed, and it remains a possibility since may be additional opportunities to fund this type of research in the future. An initiative with this focus might be welcomed by the community, as the board felt that many of the concept papers had a clinical focus and were weak in the basic science department. The wisdom of CIHR researching and attempting to influence primary health care was also questioned as such changes would be made at the provincial and not federal level. The process of concept paper presentation and business case development may also be recurring, meaning that III can re-submit a revised proposal next year. The point was also made that while CIHR does a good job of supporting basic research, we need to improve our translation of research findings into public policy and the public health response.
III has submitted the preliminary draft of its report for the second CIHR International Review. These reviews are conducted every five years, and our document will be reviewed in February by a 3-member expert review team, and then again in March by an 11-member international review panel. III will be reviewed by Rudi Balling (Luxembourg Centre for Systems Biomedicine), Deborah Smith (University of York), and Hidde Ploegh (Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research). 4 people will be interviewed by this panel, including Marc, Chris Power, Katherine Siminovitch, and Martin Schechter. Following these interviews, the panel will consult with researchers covered by III, including Michel Bergeron (Université Laval), Keith Fowke (University of Manitoba), and Sean Rourke (Ontario HIV Treatment Network), and III stakeholders including Michael Mulvey (Public Health Agency of Canada), Arlene King (Public Health Agency of Canada), Neil Cashman (PrioNet Canada), and Chris Archibald (Public Health Agency of Canada).
The support raised by the institutes for the China-Canada Joint Health Research Initiative was not comparable to the funds invested by the National Natural Science Foundation of China; therefore the funds will be coming from the CIHR central budget instead. This frees up some space in the III strategic budget.
CIHR has decided that all IABs should be decreased in size to 14 members in order to limit government “overhead” costs. However, III had vacancies in the volunteer organization and ethics designate positions so we are currently allowed 16 members. Seven members will be finishing either their first or second terms next year, which should facilitate our downsizing. The feeling among the IAB is that this will be detrimental to the III community since we represent a large and diverse group of people, and consequently need a board with a wide range of expertise. Currently, all 13 CIHR Institutes are treated equally, despite the fact that the size of the communities and required investments are not equal.
The first III Newsletter from Québec has been sent to the community, as well as the first notification of funding opportunities. The latter was particularly important as some of the RFAs, especially the Network Development Grants, were difficult to find on the CIHR website. The board decided that 3 Newsletters per year should be enough to communicate the relevant III news and funding opportunities to the community.
Budget
D. Hartell gave an update on the Institute Strategic Initiatives (ISI) budget. Funding for several new initiatives begins next fiscal year, including the Canada-UK Partnership on Antibiotic Resistance, and the Network Development Grants. The majority of funds for the next 2 years are already committed, and the remaining funds will go to supplement existing programs or to fund additional bridge grants. $1.1 million is available for 2012-13, and $3.5 million for 2013-14, which would allow us to have 2 blocks of initiatives: one for $2 million per year, and another (starting a year later) at $3 million per year. In order to begin funding an initiative in October of 2012, the working group would need to start in November 2010.
Several IAB members raised the issue of evaluation of the success of strategic investments, and the outcome of key initiatives. CIHR no longer performs evaluations of institute-led RFAs; the institutes are responsible for conducting these reviews. In the past, III received good feedback when it asked funded investigators to provide us with their 3 proudest achievements and to describe how their research fundamentally changed the landscape in that area. We would like to install an evaluation process for future III-led initiatives, which may be easier if the desired outcome of the initiative is determined before the RFA is launched, and the goals outlined accordingly.
Update on Current III Business
Human Microbiome Initiative
J. Bray gave an overview of the recent progress of the Canadian Microbiome Initiative. Funding for the initiative has now been finalized. Of the 21 applications that were received 10 were deemed to be fundable and 7 were ultimately funded, which gives a success rate of 33%. The total budget for the program is just under $15.5 million: $7.3 million from III, $6.8 million from CIHR, and $1.4 million from partners (CIHR-INMD, CIHR-HIV/AIDS, CIHR Ethics, Genome British Columbia, Crohn’s and Colitis Foundation of Canada, Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation). This program represents a significant investment for CIHR therefore it is important that it is successful. Although the 7 funded teams are each focusing on different body systems there is a significant overlap of research approaches. It would be beneficial to bring them together in a workshop to allow them to find potential areas for collaboration, and to let them know that III will continue to support newly funded teams. We should also make these teams aware of the tools offered by the CIHR Knowledge Translation (KT) branch that would allow the funded teams to make the most of their research results. Since the funded projects may also result in the development of new antibiotics and/or antivirals, we should consider fostering collaborations with our funded teams and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry. This can either be done partway through the initiative, or as it is nearing its end.
The question was raised of whether the 7 funded microbiome teams could apply for a Network Development Grant and potentially form a Canadian Microbiome Network, but it was felt that excluded those teams that were unsuccessful might be a disservice to the community as they might have data, techniques or informatics to contribute.
HIV/AIDS Research Initiative and Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative
A. Matejcic gave an update on the HIV/AIDS Research Initiative. Between the Federal Initiative to Address HIV/AIDS in Canada and the Canadian HIV Vaccine Initiative (CHVI), $22.5 million is available annually in targeted support for HIV/AIDS research. A current priority for the HIV/AIDS program is the HIV Comorbidity Initiative, focusing on other health issues and concerns experienced by people living with HIV/AIDS.
This initiative includes 5 phases:
- national stakeholder consultation;
- launch of knowledge synthesis and catalyst grant;
- literature review;
- roundtable meeting; and
- development of major funding opportunities.
Phase I revealed that the most pressing concerns were mental health and co-infection with hepatitis. There was a strong emphasis on determinants of health which affect engagement in care, as well as mental and physical health. A Knowledge Synthesis RFA was launched, and 2 applications focused on aging were funded. A catalyst grant RFA was launched in August 2010. The literature review revealed that half of the reviews conducted on comorbidities focused on co-infections, however there were very few studies conducted in Canadian Populations. The Phase IV roundtable discussions are being held in September 2010, and include 35 participants (researchers, clinicians, community organizations, HIV/AIDS patients, CIHR Institutes). The goal of these discussions is to review the evidence from the consultations and literature reviews, identify priority topics for research and knowledge translation, discuss the required funding programs, and encourage networking. The earliest possible launch for the new RFA is February 2011.
The CHVI is a partnership between multiple branches of the Government of Canada and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The goal of this initiative is to support a coordinated Canadian and international contribution to the development of a safe, effective, affordable and globally accessible HIV vaccine. This initiative is aligned with both the 2005 and 2010 CIHR strategic goals of Advancing Basic Science Research. The Large Team Grants RFA under CHVI has been launched, and 4 teams of Canadian and LMIC researchers will be funded. These projects may lead to the cross-fertilization of other research projects related to the development of a HIV vaccine.
S. Sternthal from the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) gave an additional overview of CHVI. Due to the cancellation of the vaccine manufacturing facility, the funds originally intended for this project have been redirected to support research towards vaccine development and prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV in LMICs. There is a strong need to optimize HIV research and clinical trial efforts, and to coordinate the existing efforts. There are currently phase 1 and 2 trials in Canada and the U.S., but large, more significant trials require larger population groups. New CHVI activities include private sector technology development with the National Research Council (NRC’s) Industrial Research Assistance Program to encourage small/ medium enterprises for HIV vaccines or related technologies, and the HIV Vaccine Translational Support Fund, a program created by PHAC to aid researchers in transforming applied and pre-clinical research into clinical trials. CHVI is a small portion of the PHAC budget, but it is intended as a catalyst/ synergistic initiative with significant community involvement, and therefore feedback is welcomed. CHVI is focused primarily on preventative vaccines, with a secondary focus on therapy. Additional recommendations included allocating resources for basic research to understand virus biology, an endeavour supported by the board. PHAC feels that CHVI is not starting from scratch, but building on existing strengths, and trusting III to find the right funding tools. The future of CHVI holds negotiations with other partner organizations or existing infrastructures. The board feels that additional areas should be made priorities, including understanding how any developed vaccine should be best used in other countries, and the immune response to chronic infections.
Canada-UK Partnership on Antibiotic Resistance
This initiative, a collaboration with the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) is the biggest single international partnership that CIHR has ever done. The team grant funding opportunity for this initiative has been launched, and the application deadline is January 19, 2011. The recipients of the catalyst grants are expected to score highly, but the FO will be widely advertised to ensure a high number of applications. The intent is to bring together the best minds in both countries, especially as the grant amount is quite large ($8 million over 5 years). Due to the size of the investment, we should also consider supporting these teams through meetings and networking events once they are funded.
Research Network Grants
This funding opportunity has been launched and is available on the CIHR website, and has been advertised to the I&I community through e-mails and newsletters. Up to $200,000 per year per project is available under this program for a maximum of three years, and a wide range of topics could potentially be funded.
Bhagirath Singh New Investigator Award in Infection and Immunity
This award will provide a $25,000 research supplement each year to the new investigator (within the first 5 years of their independent research career) who achieves the highest score (by percentile) in the OOG competition, and lists III as their primary institute. This new program has been announced to the I&I community through e-mails and newsletters. If two investigators tie, the award will be split evenly between them.
Pandemic Preparedness Strategic Research Initiative
J. Raven gave an overview of the Pandemic Preparedness Strategic Research Initiative (PPSRI). This initiative, begun in 2006, is sunsetting in 2011 with no concrete renewal plans or guarantees of additional funding. Therefore there are no new Funding Opportunities being launched. The third Canadian Pandemic Preparedness Annual Meeting will be held from November 12-13, 2010 in Montréal.
The objective of this meeting is to evaluate the successes and accomplishments of the initiative, and identify any remaining gaps in the research landscape. The meeting program will include a keynote lecture, 4 plenary lectures, 4 breakout sessions, and 2 poster sessions.
During the breakout sessions, participants will be asked to respond to 3 key questions related to the PPSRI:
- have we advanced the critical knowledge base relevant to the pandemic response;
- what were the key advances achieved under this initiative; and
- what remains to be done, or is unknown and needs to be addressed.
A report will be prepared following the meeting and shared with PHAC and published on the CIHR website.
Despite the lack of continued strategic funding for influenza research, the board feels that there are important questions that need to be answered. A priority should be studies at the population level that investigate the long-term effects of the H1N1 vaccine and adjuvant in adults as well as children. The biobank managed by the PHAC-CIHR Influenza Research Network (PCIRN) contains more than 3000 serum and nasal secretion samples, and could be useful for a wide variety of studies. This is an important resource that would be at risk if additional funding cannot be secured.
New Investigator Forum
S. Desnoyers gave an overview of the planning for the New Investigator Forum (NIF). III is planning to hold a NIF in October 2011, and needs 2 members of the IAB to serve as mentors on the planning committee, which will set the objectives for the meeting and plan the program. Most of the planning committee meetings are held via teleconference, and there one face-to-face meeting 4-5 months before the forum is held. G. Wu and J. Stankova were both involved with the NIF last year, and will serve as the mentors this year. They reported that the grant writing workshop is always well received, that the ethics and research integrity workshop could have been improved, and that the commercialization of research workshop might be too early to introduce to New Investigators. This topic could possibly be changed to “interactions with industry”, or “pursuit of alternative funding sources” since it is not always easy for new investigators to get grants with CIHR. Other possibilities include “intellectual property” or “getting your lab started”. There is some concern that due to the economic downturn, there might not be enough new investigators to hold a workshop. We will get an idea of numbers when we start contacting department heads and deans to publicize the event and solicit recommendations for attendees.
International Review
J. Bray gave an update on the status of the international review report for III. A draft report has been submitted to the management team, and will be reviewed by 8 people (including 2 other SDs). We will receive comments by the end of September, and then resubmit the report by October 22nd. C. Power and A. Grant have comments on the report pertaining especially to the HIV/AIDS section, which they will discuss with A. Matejcic by teleconference. The report clearly demonstrates a link between research funded by III, and research advances in academic and private industry. Overall, the feeling is that there is a lack of a driving vision for the Institute at the start of the report, and adding this will give perspective on where we want to go. As an Institute, we have learned lessons from previous challenges such as SARS, and as a result we were dramatically more ready for H1N1 than we might have been otherwise.
The response of the research community was excellent. Table 1, which shows the strategic priorities of the Institute may hurt us because we have addressed all of the priorities on the left-hand side, but not the right-hand side of the table. This could be used as a selling point for our preparedness to threats, since the infectious disease challenges we have faced have not deterred us from our objectives. The report is also weak on commercialization and knowledge translation. We may be able to get this information from universities, if we cannot get it from the investigators themselves. The importance of the Canadian Program for Research Ethics in a Pandemic (CanPREP) is understated, as the ethic framework outlined by this group was adopted by a number of health agencies in different countries. The participation of Volunteer Health Organizations (VHOs) was not very clear, nor was the number of partnerships that III formed.
This could be summarized in a single sentence and perhaps included in the evidence binder if there is no room in the actual report. PPSRI was another major initiative that should receive a lot of attention, particularly the partnership of PCIRN with representatives of vaccine manufacturers and health agencies. The maternal health trials and the Hutterite trials were also pivotal, and the resultant policy of immunizing children to protect the community as a whole is being recognized around the world. The relationship between PHAC and CIHR should be strengthened. In general, we need to be much more hands-on with the researchers that we fund, so that we have better access to the stories that are generated by the research that we support. The impact of these research advances are key to the evaluation process and need to be highlighted.
New Business
Inflammation in Chronic Diseases Initiative
S. Desnoyers gave a summary of the Inflammation in Chronic Diseases Initiative, led by the Institute of Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis, and co-led by III. This initiative has 4 main objectives: understanding the mechanism underlying tissue inflammation across chronic diseases; identifying novel common markers, potential therapeutic targets and treatments; developing novel imaging strategies to monitor and measure the progression of inflammation and pain, and the responsiveness of patients to interventions and therapeutic strategies; and identifying novel interventions and effective programs for the prevention of chronic diseases and pain-associated diseases. While inflammation is widespread, the exact mechanisms leading to inflammation, and the role of inflammation in many diseases is poorly understood. There are many contexts in which inflammation could potentially be studied, and if III is truly going to be a partner then the focus should be broad and not just on musculoskeletal health. Other areas outlined in the presentation include aging, physical activity, and transplantation. The business case for this initiative is currently in development for submission in late 2010, and III will have a lot of input into the preparation of this document to ensure that the focus of the final product is not too narrow.
Human Immunology Initiative
S. Desnoyers summarized the Human Immunology Initiative, as proposed by Tania Watts, former IAB member. There is currently a worldwide effort at understanding human immunology, which may be in line with our own research goals. A healthy immune system is essential, but the healthy immune system is poorly understood. Understanding the normal scope of the human immune response to vaccination and infection is essential, but most of our information on this subject comes from mouse models, which have key differences to humans. Access to human material would provide better samples for research purposes, as would increasing the exposure of clinicians to immunology research. In the United States, the NIH has funded 6 centres at the level of $100 million over 5 years. These centres are part of the human immunology network and are running their own programs, but other researchers can apply and join.
In Canada, there are 2 centres: the University of Toronto (sanofi Pasteur Chair in Human Immunology) and the Centre for Human Immunology at the University of Western Ontario. Dr. Watts proposes that Canada should join the international effort by providing new funding aimed at developing centres or networks on the human immune response, training basic and clinician scientists, understanding the impact of the human microbiome on the immune response. M. Ouellette suggested that this proposal might fit well with the personalized medicine concept paper, by using individual immune markers to predict a patient’s reaction to vaccines and other treatments. It was also pointed out that this proposal bears a striking resemblance to the Immune Tolerance Network (ITN), and therefore there might be some areas in common between the two. The most benefit to Canada may come from identifying approaches that are really unique, rather than modelling other countries’ systems. Otherwise, Canadian researchers could simply partner with international researchers. There is also the possibility of a cross-over between the Human Microbiome Initiative (HMI) and any human immunology initiative, as some of the samples generated by the HMI such as lung and gut tissue, could be used to study the immune response. Any potential initiative we begin would have a much smaller budget than those being run in the U.S., and our goals should be targeted accordingly.
Transplantation
A. Jevnikar presented a new initiative focused on transplantation. At present in Canada, there are a significant number of patients awaiting donor organs, some of whom have already received donated organs. One of the reasons for this is that the drugs that are given to prevent rejection often have serious side effects on other organ systems like the kidneys. One strategy to address this problem would be to increase organ donation, while the other would be to make the transplanted organ last for the duration of the patient’s life. In Canada, graft and transplant survival rates exceed those of the U.S., but the organ donation rates are lower. To achieve this second goal, we need a broader perspective to understand graft injury.
CIHR has funded many projects related to transplantation, but few of them are related to inflammation or organ rejection. This presents a significant gap, especially as Canada excels at clinical trials, despite the fact that investment in this field is lagging. There is a perceived bias among transplant researchers, as they are generally less successful in OOG competitions and are underserved by the available funding opportunities. The question was raised of whether or not we would receive enough applications for an RFA launched in this field, and A. Jevnikar replied that it would not be a problem, especially as a National Centre for Excellence in Transplantation was shortlisted for funding but ultimately not selected. The community and the interest are there. An RFA might also attract applicants who are not currently seen to be working in the field, but on a related topic. A key question that would be addressed by this initiative is whether or not the body addresses transplanted organs the same was it addresses threats? Other Institutes are interested in an initiative that addresses transplantation, so III would have support if it launched anything.
Vector-borne Diseases
J. Raven presented an initiative proposal on vector-borne diseases (VBD). There are a number of VBD that currently pose a threat to the health of Canadians, including Lyme disease, West Nile virus, malaria, dengue, and leishmaniasis. Some of these diseases are endemic to Canada, while others are imported by travellers. This may change, as climate change is rapidly expanding the habitats of many vectors, thus increasing the chance that humans will come into contact with them. At present, no initiative is tackling VBD and zoonotic infections from a climate change perspective, although there is some research on transmission and tracking of infections diseases, especially on the part of PHAC. Climate change is an important issue for the federal government and because of this we might be able to recruit a lot of internal partners for an initiative. III could also link up with the “One Health” initiative (Human, Animals, the Environment) along with PHAC, or the Institute of Aboriginal Peoples Health since northern populations tend to have a higher risk of exposure to many diseases. Various IAB members communicated the fact that there are vaccines in development for malaria (GSK) and dengue (sanofi Pasteur).
Chemical Biology
E. Brown gave an overview of his proposal on chemical biology. The NIH in the U.S. is the clear leader in this area of research since it was one of their flagship initiatives. Overall this is a difficult area to fund, as it is high input with a potentially low output and as a result, these types of projects don’t tend to do well in the OOG competitions. Antibiotic resistance has been identified by the WHO as a serious threat, and consequently there have been many promises made about moving forward and addressing the problem. Genomic sequencing of microbes has provided new targets, but the “genes-to-drugs” approach has ultimately failed even though hundreds of bacterial genomes have been sequenced.
Small molecules may help to “perturb” the microbial system, and large chemical screens can be used to identify molecules that are effective for synthetic chemical approaches. A Canadian Chemical Biology Network (CCBN) was pressed by Phil Branton and although it started strong, it tapered off due to a lack of additional funding or informatics support. There are currently several chemical biology screening centres in Canada, including the Centre for Chemical Biology at McMaster which has taken on screening projects for groups all over North America. There are also centres in Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. In order to be truly and lastingly successful, this initiative must be done on a large scale. It would require a multi-institute investment and engagement of many people from the scientific community. There is some concern from the IAB that this is a big ticket item, and therefore it might be advantageous for pharmaceutical companies to become involved. This approach could also be used for the identification of other drugs, not just antibiotics.Germ-free Facilities
P. Ernst presented his proposal to support gnotobiotic facilities. These facilities are crucial to understanding the effect of microbes on various human infections and diseases, and while many labs are undertaking “pilot” research in this area, the infrastructure is not extensive enough to allow them to continue these projects in animal models. One or more central facilities would allow labs to create germ-free animals and then ship them to a supported facility for further research. In the U.S, there is the enteric research network, and projects are selected quarterly based on scientific merit by a committee. Facility users are funded researchers who are contributing funds to the maintenance of the facility. The question was raised of whether III would be funding the researchers, or supporting the infrastructure? If the current facility at McMaster doesn’t have the space or the personnel to support additional users, then it might be difficult to get other researchers is, even if they have funding for their projects. This is an important issue, as teams that are funded under the Canadian Microbiome Initiative may need this type of facility to further their work, although none of the proposals made reference to it. This is a unique facility for the Canadian community and a case should be made for sustaining it, but perhaps it should be promoted first so there is support from the research community. We will inform our funded CMI teams about the facility during the planned workshop in March. The former director was in favour of restricting access to the facility, however the new director is more open if appropriate support can be found. We should have an idea of their operating budget before we can proceed, so that we can know what size and kind of initiative would be required. The Scientific Director of the Institute of Nutrition, Metabolism and Diabetes is in support of an initiative to target gnotobiotic facilities, so we have some internal partners who would be interested.
Selection of next initiative
The various proposals were discussed, and the criteria for selection of a new initiative were outlined. The project should be something that that SD wants to drive because it will require a lot of effort on his part. It should be something that will have an impact on the scientific community, the health of Canadians, and global health. We have the option to either seed something that will rapidly become bigger, or fund something that is small but makes a significant impact on the community. We need to ensure that there is no conflict of interest, which could be perceived if we proceed with vector-borne diseases as this is M. Ouellette’s area of research. If the scope of that initiative were expanded to include climate change and its effect on health, there would be less suggestion of a conflict because it would touch a wide range of populations and interest other Institutes. Funding would likely start in 2012-13, therefore alignment with the 2012-17 strategic priorities is advisable.
An initiative with an emphasis on the human impact is important, as it has been repeatedly stated that we need more information about and a better understanding of the human immune system. If the first 3 projects (inflammation, human immunology and transplantation) were pursued, it could result in a sense of continuity among III initiatives.
Before selecting an initiative, we need to ensure that Canada has the national core facilities that would be required, which may not be the case right now for chemical biology. It is unlikely that support in the range of $2 million per year will be able to impact this, although it has been done with the CCBN in the past. Chemical biology may seem peripheral to the interests of III, but it is good to stretch outside of our comfort zone, and this initiative may provide the best opportunity to yield results for the next international review. Our initiative might provide researchers with an opportunity to initially identify these compounds and then progress to other sources of funding at a later time.
There is a feeling that while III has done very well with infection, the microbiome and antibiotics, we have not touched on immunology enough. Transplantation is both a success and a failure of applied immunology, and we could make an impact by supporting innovative research. This includes novel imaging techniques, pathogen research, and new research models. It may be included in the inflammation initiative, but the worry with this is that since the focus is musculoskeletal, transplantation may get buried and the launch of any RFAs would be delayed.
The point was made that many universities currently have small molecule libraries, so this initiative could be launched fairly quickly, but that we would need very specific endpoints for any funded projects. Transplantation could be combined with chemical biology, in that high-throughput facilities could be used to specifically identify small molecule immune modulators that affect transplant rejection. Novartis in Cambridge has hundreds of scientists looking at small molecules and performing high-throughput screening, but perhaps transplantation is too small to be a focus for them. Since the goal of this initiative is to build capacity in academia, perhaps we should not fund areas that are being well funded by industry. Our focus should be in highly innovative, risky research since companies are less likely to do that. The innovation that we could bring to the transplantation initiative is the human immunology focus, which would allow us to support the level 3 inflammation initiative and get some results earlier than a stand-alone initiative.
Funding an initiative on vector-borne diseases and climate change could bring a lot of attention to III, and there are upcoming symposia across the country that will be focusing on global infectious diseases. The concern is that this topic area was not well received during the concept paper development, and might have trouble recruiting partners. Internally, the Institute of Population and Public Health, and the Institute of Health Services and Policy Research were interested, and there is a significant ethics component as well. This fits in well with the CIHR Health Research Roadmap priority of preparing for and responding to existing and emerging threats to health.
Future IAB Meetings
The next meeting will be held from January 25-26, 2011 at the Fairmont Royal York in Toronto, ON.