The importance of scientific collaboration
Q: In general, how do you see Canada doing in the translation of research into application?
This is an area where we typically do the Canadian thing: beat ourselves up about our supposed failings. I don't think that we're doing any better or worse than other countries because, in general, translating research findings into clinical practice or policy or into products is a tough, frustrating, often contradictory process no matter where you are on the planet.
Why?
A lot of reasons. The first is cultural. People who do the research live in a very different world from the people who are interested in applying it. A scientist on University Avenue wants a paper in Nature, while an entrepreneur wants a profitable company. Timelines also differ between the producers and the potential users of research. A scientist thinks in terms of years, an entrepreneur in terms of months. All of which can lead to a trust gap as scientists and entrepreneurs find they speak different languages, have different work cultures and value systems. Therefore, when a researcher and an entrepreneur try to forge an effective partnership it can be very challenging. But when it works, everyone benefits. The scientist. The entrepreneur. Society. A second reason why translation of research from the bench to the boardroom is so hard is that for this to happen, you need two things. First, great science fuelled by enlightened funders. And secondly, knowledgeable investors who can recognize early on a great idea and nurture its transformation to the marketplace.
This gap sounds like what used to be called in terms of French/English relations in Canada "the two solitudes."
It does. That's why one needs real inducements to change and recognition that things have changed. Universities are starting to broaden their definition of success as a scholar. Traditionally, greater weight has been given to research activities that lead to important papers, while much less value has been placed on translating new knowledge into, for example, a new biotech company. Many universities are now carefully and thoughtfully exploring how they can best reward both service to society and original scholarly activity. One reason this evolution is timely is that the line between basic and applied research has become very blurred. It's also increasingly clear that societal investments in higher education and research are among the very best that any country can make, so I do not believe research/entrepreneur activities are intrinsically contradictory. Rather, these two ways of approaching things are mutually dependent and supportive.
Does this mean Canadian biomedical scientists should do better at encouraging students to seek their futures in the business world?
In a word - yes! Our academic culture still places the highest value in training our students to become clones of their professors. The best students are encouraged to become professors, and everyone else is encouraged to join a company. In contrast, I recently had a conversation with a U.S. Nobel laureate who told me, "I have this crackerjack post-doc, the best post-doc I've ever had. He really should join this company." In this regard, we must become more American in our thinking.
But what will this push into teamwork and partnerships with industry do to scientific creativity?
The widely held myth is that scientific creativity is only done by scientists working on their own. This myth is the unintended fallout of our view of lone wolf Albert Einstein - the iconic scientist for researchers and non-researchers alike. The reality today, especially in areas like physics and biomedicine, is that leading-edge science is increasingly being carried out by multinational, multisite collaborations. This century's truth is that there is nothing inherently contradictory about a team being creative, especially as research is increasingly being driven by sophisticated technologies requiring specialized experts. Thus, in the 21st century, more often than not, Einstein is now part of a team of Einsteins.
