Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Commentary

Building an economy based on innovation

DAVID NAYLOR

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:47 PM EDT 27/07/08

In the global race, we are lagging behind countries such as South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore and Israel. ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Another self serving aticle by a university president. Can the Globle please stop giving these people a place to sound off? Its getting a little embarassing.

    Ok, some of the fundamental differences between Israle and Canada are that Isralie society is increadably militerized. Second, there is increadably strong social cohession based in ethnic background and a histroy (percived and real) of persecusion by others. Canada doesn't have that and two the venture capital avaliable in Canada is minimal at best. Partly this is because investments are viewed as retirement plans and so the level of security required is much much greater then investments that are viewed more as shots in the dark.

    For these and other reasons Canada is utterly unlike Israle and trying to imply that we should be just like them is silly and dishonnest.

    James Hare
  2. Another Opinion from Canada writes: For J Hare: "For these and other reasons Canada is utterly unlike Israle and trying to imply that we should be just like them is silly and dishonnest."

    Yeah, concepts like innovation and diversification are SUCH cr@p, eh? I can't believe some lame-o educated guy would dare argue that coasting along on a resource-driven economy is a bad thing.

    Next thing you're going to hear is that improved efficiency, competitiveness and labour productivity would actually MATTER in a global marketplace. What utter nonsense, eh J?

    This rant would be hilarious if I wasn't so sure that there are dim bulbs out there who actually believe it.
  3. J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Another Opinion, did I say the concepts such a innovation and diversification were excrement? Can you read what is written? Would you like to point out were in my comments I said a resource extraction based economy was a good thing? Did I argue against increase competitiveness or productivity?

    Oh, and then you go off about the "global marketplace" load of insanity. What exactly is Canada competeing for? Access to resources, we've got them their ours, standard of living check, balanced budget check so far. Oh, thats right, we need bigger companies so they can fail over and over again like Wall street or Enron or Comscore and need government rescure like Bombadeer. We must must must be a leader in technology because, well, just because. Come up with some real reasons why what I said is silly and I'll listen otherwise its just hot air.

    James Hare
  4. T Symonds from Edmonton, Canada writes: I wouldn't be surprised if nearly every nation lags behind these countries in terms of innovation.

    Also, in the case of Singapore and Taiwan, as well as probably Israel, there is no other choice but innovation - a big motivator. One is a city-state (Singapore) the other the size of the GTA (Taiwan), and Israel is a desert.

    Canada is quite a different country - large geographically with a sparse, diverse population. Comparing Canada with these nations, without recognizing the significant differences is not very useful
  5. Another Opinion from Canada writes: For J Hare: "Come up with some real reasons why what I said is silly and I'll listen otherwise its just hot air."

    Oh, I'm sorry. I thought idi0tic tangents were the theme of this thread.

    The author posted an article discussing the funding of a research environment that encourages innovation, and you respond with some babbling b.s. about "ethnic background" and "retirement plans". It seemed only appropriate for me to go off in another direction.

    You want to stay on topic? Fine. Exactly what is so horrible about creating a self-sustaining environment for innovation by coordinating government, research and industry resources? Oh, and try to mock the author without using skin tone (ethnic background? seriously?) as an excuse.
  6. J Hare from Saskatoon, Canada writes: Another Opinion, did you read the article? The author suggests adopting a technological development system that would be modled on a different contries. Yet he fails in addressing how that country is similar or different from the one he is suggesting adopt a similar approche. Canada is different from Israle in a huge number of ways. To try and seriouly compare apples to oranges without noting their differences is silly at best. All these things come into play and should be addresses. As the author failed to do so I judged and posted that this was the case. Yes, innovation and economic diversification are good ideas but to try and transplant a technique for encouraging them from a forign country is doomed to failure.

    James Hare
  7. Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: One of Canada's problems is our politicians want to make big announcements almost every week about matters of which they know little. They use something called 'private-public' partnerships, and the taxpayers have been taken to the cleaners almost EVERY time by naive politicians flattered by corporations that know how to pull political strings ... arrange political fund-raisers and campaign donations that are miniscule compared to the return to corporations. Universities have some excellent researchers, but they usually work in isolation. Think of the Canadian researchers who discovered cancer stem cells on their own, thereby recognizing the inherent limitations of chemotherapy. Health research is one of those 'private-public' partnership areas where pharmaceutical industries 'guide' the research they want through political lobbying: too many research grant applications need Big Pharma to be a partner, and Big Pharma is a partner only for the products they sell. They don't want innovation, they want to sell their products! 'Private-public' hospitals? No problem ... an enormous over-priced hospital will be built so the developers can cash in on tax dollars, but there will be no money for staff, and necessary equipment like MRI and CT scanners. Want a toll highway? In Ontario, politicians destroyed the 1970s Greenbelt to build Hwy 407 with tax dollars, then sold the highway to a Spanish-based consortium for less than the costs of the land and highway. Some Spaniards must have really flattered, wined and dined Mike Harris and his ilk for that favour. Now, Ontarians have to pay outrageous tolls to use the highway their tax dollars built. The profits don't stay in Canada; it's the same story for most projects where politicians try to pick economic winners. Taxpayers end up losers.
  8. Clayton Burns from Vancouver, Canada writes: Reality is to be found in a place where the President is not inclined to look for it. It is fine to dare to be great--I myself would see nothing wrong with being great if I had the opportunity--but lack of realism will have obvious consequences. I expected the President to respond to my comment, at The Varsity site, on the corporate campus, but no doubt he is too busy flying around the world and dreaming about being great to consider fundamentals. There is no excuse for MCAT, LSAT, and all the other trash products, and no excuse for the acute parasitism of Kaplan. I would like to know what the President plans to do about this problem. I would like him to tell me what he thinks of the letter to the National Post, March 29 2008, by Dr. Marcel Dvorak of UBC, that outlines misdiagnoses he had seen. I would like him to examine the stories about Steven Pelech of UBC today and indicate to me the right course for UBC given the findings against Pelech. I would like him to tell me why the medical faculty at MUN failed to discover and publically challenge the errors in pathology in NL. I would like him to explain to me why The Association of Faculties of Medicine of Canada is so slow in finding out about weaknesses in information flow and advising on the incorporation of knowledge of medical pathologies into the curriculum for medical faculties. I would like the President to initiate a comprehensive review of the teaching and testing of the official languages at his university. How is it possible that Canadian universities have failed fully to grasp the implications of the corpus revolution in Linguistics so as to recommend at least four official books such as the COBUILD Intermediate and English grammar, the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary, and the Longman Language Activator to replace all such trash as Azar, TOEFL...and the absurd PSC of Canada grammar tests? Do you read at least 8 print newspapers in the morning, unlike Toope, who struggles with his reading menu?
  9. scamp the from Canada writes:
    Yeah, why on earth would I work hard when 1/2 my money goes to the lazy and the public service. What do I look like a slave?
  10. LJ Brody from Canada writes: Israel is not creating an economy based on innovation, their economy is based on military spending, which is in turn fueled by billions and billions of dollars given them by the US.

    Israel's 'innovation' kills people all around the World.
  11. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Anyone remember Dr Nancy Olivieri and Apotex. And the link between U of T, Sick Children's Hospital and a drug research study for a new drug produced by Apotex? That P3 BS.

    Naylor wasn't U of T's president when this went down, but irt was a monstrous scandal and debacle. And U of T failed utterly - in all its duties and responsibilities.

    All in the name of a quick, "innovation-based" buck. The trivial detail that the "innovation" was literally killing its intended beneficiaries was deemed irrelevant when contrasted with potential profits from a flawed wonder-drug. Dr. Olivieri went through years of abuse and hell. But she was vindicated, and substantial fines were paid.

    What is scary about this article is that we are hearing the exact same propaganda and lies about "lack of innovation" today, as were used to justify the abuse and harassment of Dr. Olivieri some 15 years ago. All in the name of potential P3 profits for the University.

    One wonders how many Nancy Olivieris have been successfully suppressed and swept under the rug in the name of the profits resulting from dubious innovations under P3 deals. This is NOT real innovation.
  12. Dave Patterson from Thailand writes: What we really need is an economy based on what's good for We the People, rather than what's good for big corp profits and bank-'investor' takings. Neoconomics aside, these are very much NOT the same thing - in many ways, they are directly contradictory. Innovation is good when it results in some improvement in our lives - but when we preach innovation for the sake of innovation, simply providing new toys for consumers to play with, it becomes a serious waste of time and resources - do we really 'need' a new, improved gatorade or computer game? These things are fine when developed in someone's basement and actually do something people want, but trying to base an economy on such things is sheer nonsense, and it's very indicative of the gravity of our problem that the head of one of Canada's largest universities is promulgating the big corp-bank mantra, rather than speaking for We the People. For an out of the box perspective, a good place to start is They're Building a Box - and You're In It - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.html . And to see it all in practice, Green Island http://www.rudemacedon.ca/greenisland.html .
  13. Bill Smith from Canada writes: Building an economy based on innovation takes people who can think outside the box and are willing to take risks. These traits are sorely lacking in Canada. It's much easier and safer to leech off the US economy
    and then whine when their actions harm us rather than strike off on our own like Australia has and be a truly independent country beholden to no one.
  14. Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: Very salient points from postings above ... Orest Zarowsky reminds us of the Nancy Olivieri/Apotex debacle. The public might not know that Big Pharma (and other industries) ask university researchers to sign a "non-disclosure agreement" before providing research funding. This legally-binding agreement means researchers must report their findings ONLY to the funding company (Apotex in Dr. Olivieri's case), and they must not publicize any negative findings. The funding company is allowed to delete any negative research results about their product(s). In some cases, there is a revolving door between the executive positions within drug companies and those at Health Canada which registers products for public use. When Dr. Olivieri noticed some of her patients had problems with Apotex's drug, she went public with those details. The rest is history. This is a common story with "public-private" contracts at universities. There are others, but most researchers knuckle under to the lucrative pressure. The public would be very surprised to learn which industries have a lot of 'invisible control' over university departments -- true independent research is anathema where big money is involved. Agricultural sciences derive funding for pesticide 'research'. Medical sciences receive funding from industries involved with pharmaceuticals and insurance. Industry funds conferences, information programs, research and other incentives directed at modestly-paid university staff. Non-tenured or part-time staff must find the proffered benefits almost irresistible. Independent thinking is not encouraged when university presidents want to be remembered for increasing revenues. Just like ALL politics in this country.
  15. E T from Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: Anyone remember Dr Nancy Olivieri and Apotex. And the link between U of T, Sick Children's Hospital and a drug research study for a new drug produced by Apotex? That P3 BS.

    Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: Very salient points from postings above ... Orest Zarowsky reminds us of the Nancy Olivieri/Apotex debacle. The public might not know that Big Pharma (and other industries) ask university researchers to sign a "non-disclosure agreement" before providing research funding. This legally-binding agreement means researchers must report their findings ONLY to the funding company (Apotex in Dr. Olivieri's case), and they must not publicize any negative findings. The funding company is allowed to delete any negative research results about their product(s).

    Actually that was not "P3 BS", and it wasn't research funding. It was fee-for-service. Dr. Olivieri was contracted to do the clinical research on deferiprone for Apotex. And while Apotex did not exhibit their best behaviour (although they were within their rights - she breached the contract she voluntarily signed), U of T was not to blame - they have an ethics advisory board (a disinterested party) which she should have consulted. Instead she grew steadily more paranoid and manic (lots of documentation on weird behaviour from Olivieri concerning her colleagues and staff) and then decided to publish data that she DID NOT OWN. The fact is, when you are contracted to collect data, you don't own it. It's the same as when I was a lab tech - the data I collected belonged to the PI, and he got to decide what to do with it. Also, for the record, U of T never fired her (although she claims otherwise) - she moved from HSC to UHN. And having "poisoned the work environment" at HSC, it was her only option. There is a lot of myth about Olivieri - she is 2nd only to David Healy in promoting her own victimhood, but the facts don't support it.
  16. E T from Canada writes: Oh, and as an epilogue - deferiprone is currently in use; thalassemia patients are taking it after all.
  17. Vic Hotte from Kettleby, Canada writes: Dr. Olivieri noted that some of her young patients had problems with deferiprone, and she considered that some warning ought to be issued. It would not be unusual for some patients to have a reaction to a specific drug (or combination), but that specific population must be identified, so they can be warned about possible risks, or offered an alternative. This is the story of most drugs, but too often, the manufacturers don't want that information made public. That was the issue with celebrex ... also the issue with viagra, which was linked to nonarteritic ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION). The same type of problem developed with use of Prepulsid, which caused irregular heart beats, resulting in the deaths of adolescents ... but most adults could use it as directed. The important thing is manufacturers should not fight the need for transparency, and patients need to be realistic about the capabilities of prescribed drug regimens and potential risks.
  18. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ E T: well, it is clear that you have an axe or two to grind. I just wonder who you are working for.

    Especially since it was made clear that a lot of the "bad behaviour" attributed to Dr. Olivieri was in fact a fabrication made by a couple of her associates in the department with the collusion of certain senior executives of the University who were under pressure from Apotex.

    All because of a few dollars.

    A study on the efficacy and effects of a new drug is research.

    As for who owns the data and what is done with it, well, there are a few more stakeholders in drug studies than just the pharmaceutical company.

    There have been far too many instances over the past ten years of new wonderdrugs being recalled when nasty side effects came to light. And all of these had been suppressed by the manufacturers.

    So, E T give your head a shake. And fewss up to who you work for.
  19. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: We are not going to be world leaders until government supports all innovations, not just those of political friends. We need innovation fund backing with at least 52% of all funds going to women. Then the world will change and for the better.
  20. D Mores from GTA, Canada writes: I don't know how the Nancy O. comments ended up here, but I don't think the posters knew the insider scoop on this, nor of how drug companies work with academics in general, and how this differs in Canada and in Toronto in specific.

    Take home message of the Nancy O story is that it should not be used to exemplify or support most arguments about innovation and partnerships.

    The outliers in the Nancy O case are as follows:
    1) Apotex is a generic drug company that does not work with academic groups the same way as non-generic companies. The leadership team at Apotex were as iconoclasts that did lots of things that went against best practices.

    2) Nancy O had little experience working with drug development programs. That is actually the case with most clinicians in Toronto and from Canada. Sure they do a lot of investigator-sponsored clinical studies (which was rarer back in the days when the Apotex-Nancy O thing happened). But those type of studies are very different from company-sponsored studies. The latter types have very specific protocols and requires strong project management to be successful. Even major drug companies falter in doing this, and Apotex and Nancy were certainly not as qualified as more experienced people.

    3) Poor judgment was exercised by all players in the Apotex-Nancy O situation before, during and after the entire debacle.
  21. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ D Mores: I made the comments about Olivieri precisely because the situation was such a clear example of just how FUBAR the "relationship" between a university and a corporation can get. Especially if the university has become dependent on the revenue stream provided buy that relationship.

    E T's response was especially interesting, in that context.
  22. too old from Canada writes: Bill Smith you are bang on. Do you notice how many of the posts eventually get to Gov. should, or Gov. must etc. etc.

    There are a number of small Canadian outfits who are on the leading edge of innovation. These companies create something which is world class then have to go begging for some money to put it into production.

    Often what ends up happening is that they have to sell out to the Yanks or now the Chinese etc.

    We have developed solar shingles for houses, new technology for geothermal, new diesel engines (low pollution and cheaper to run ).

    NRC is doing some good work on fuel cell small generators with a company here.

    The question I would ask the posters here is what if anything have you done to further innovation or invested a few bucks in a company that is? I think I know the usual Canadian answer. Absolutely nothing.

    The Chinese do, the French do, the Yanks do, the Brazilians do the Swedes do but here in Canada we expect the Gov. to do. Get real.
  23. Orest Zarowsky from Toronto, Canada writes: @ too old: You and Bill Smith are dead wrong. Stupid too. And neither of you paid attention to what Naylor praised in his article. That being direct government involvement in, and direction of, not only the "innovation" business, but, even more critically, the venture capital business. What we have here in Canada is a joke. And that joke is a direct consequence and result of the influence and ideology of goombas like you.

    The most amusing aspect - in a very bleak way - of the consequences of your ideologically-driven worldview is that the very things that you whine about are a direct and inevitable consequence and result of the application of the RRW economic and political "philosophy" you espouse.

    It doesn't help that you and your ilk are fundamentally anti-intellectual and anti-science - or as you bozos prefer to describe it: "eggheads". But it is those "eggheads" that generate all that progress.

    Those Alberta tar sands would not be in business if it weren't for the technical and scientific advances generated by the "eggheads" you and your ilk so despise. Stevie is one of you. Just like his bosses in the US. Woe is upon us.

    So much for innovation and research here. Thanks for nothing.
  24. E T from Canada writes: Orest Zarowsky : Look, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you, and I don't have an axe to grind, and I don't work for Apotex or for Big Pharma, which is (I think) what you were wondering.

    I know that "A study on the efficacy and effects of a new drug is research", but there is still a difference between research funding and fee-for-service. I have worked in a lab that has done funded research (Tri-council, private foundations etc) as well as contract research (paid for by Pharm companies. When it's fee-for-service, you are renting out you expertise, the same way an accountant does at tax time. You design and run the study, you generate the data, and you hand it over. Depending on the terms of the contract, you may publish a)at will, b)with approval, c)with collaboration, or perhaps even d)not at all.

    Also: to Mr. Zarowsky and Mr. Mores - my insider-information is far from complete (I was not Dr O's boss or co-investigator on the project or anything), but I was at U of T at the time - different dept, but I had friends & colleagues who were grad students/techs/post-docs at HSC. I agree that there was a whole lot of poor judgment on both sides, I was just trying to point out that media portrayal did not address this, painting Dr O as an innocent victim and possibly a saint. For example, Orest states "it was made clear that a lot of the "bad behaviour" attributed to Dr. Olivieri was in fact a fabrication made by a couple of her associates in the department with the collusion of certain senior executives of the University who were under pressure from Apotex". Not sure who told you that, but I'd say it's debatable at best. For one thing, it doesn't really track - Apotex is small potatoes w/r/t UofT funding - the amount of pressure they could exert is negligible in the grand scheme.
  25. Orest Zarowsky from Canada writes: @ E T: There was an investigation. The fabrications of bad character and behaviour and the collusion of senior administrators were clearly documented during the investigation. As was the fact that the worst offenders were directly tied to certain pharmaceutical companies.

    Olivieri got compensation from U of T. If she was really as stupid and venal as you suggest, there is no way that this would have happened.

    I note that you are very careful to avoid addressing the not so little problems I raised with recent "wonder-drugs" that have been recalled. Why is that?

    I also note that you don't address the issue of multiple stakeholders in drug studies and who really owns the data. Again - why is that?

    And you say that you are a neutral observer.

    Yeah right. Pull the other one - it's got bells on it.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top