workshop summary report - ontario genomics€¦ · 2019 canada synbio w orkshop summary report 5 ....

MaRS Discovery District Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Prepared by:

Ontario Genomics on behalf of the 2019 Canada SynBio

Organizing Committee

Published:

April 2019

WORKSHOP SUMMARY REPORT

2019 CANADA SYNBIO WORKSHOP SUMMARY REPORT 1

2019 Canada SynBio was proudly supported by the following organizations:


TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................... 3

OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

INTRODUCTION − THE PRESENT AND FUTURE STATE OF SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY ...................................................................... 5

COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT ................................................................................................................... 5

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AND FOUNDRIES ................................................................................................................ 8

SHARING EXPERIENCES – LESSONS LEARNED AND HURDLES .............................................................................................. 9

BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS............................................................................................................................11

Q1. Steering Committee ......................................................................................................................................12

Q2. Tools & Infrastructure ...................................................................................................................................13

Q3. SynBio Conference ........................................................................................................................................15

CONCLUSIONS ..........................................................................................................................................................17

APPENDIX I: Workshop Participants ......................................................................................................................18


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY BACKGROUND

Synthetic biology1 (also commonly referred to as synbio or engineering biology) has become the new frontier of biotechnology, promising to radically improve the way we diagnose and treat disease, produce food, and make everything from clothes to fragrances, biofuels and plastics. Given its enormous potential to address the grand challenges societies are facing such as health, sustainability, scarcity of resources and energy security, synthetic biology has been embraced by scientists and investors alike around the world. Synbiobeta reports investments made in synthetic biology companies were over $4 billion in 2018, and it is clear that countries such as the US, UK, Australia, China and others are betting big on the synbio revolution to deliver significant societal and economic impacts on both a national and international scale. However, as with any other science and technology, this emerging discipline is not without risks. Additionally, because it allows mankind to rewrite the genetic code of all living things, synthetic biology raises ethical questions and concerns.

As part of an ongoing effort to build the synthetic biology community in Canada, the synbio community convened at the 2nd Annual Canada SynBio Conference and Workshop in Toronto on March 6-7, 2019:

• The 2019 Canada SynBio Conference2 (March 6) brought together over 300 people including researchers, government, industry, entrepreneurs, start-ups, associations, students, funders, VCs and other investors from across Canada and beyond to cultivate and promote the synthetic biology community of practice, as well as to continue to establish common objectives and parameters for this emerging field.

• A half-day SynBio Workshop (March 7) was held with approximately 80 participants3 by invitation with the purpose of creating the foundation for leadership of synthetic biology in Canada and mapping out a path forward. This report summarizes the highlights and outcomes of the SynBio Workshop.

WORKSHOP HIGHLIGHTS AND OUTCOMES

The first half of the workshop focused on the exchange of information and ideas about recent advancements to support the development of synthetic biology in Canada, including presentations from funders, proposals for foundries and facilities and lessons learned from the community. The second half of the workshop was dedicated to discussion and feedback regarding the creation of a National SynBio Steering Committee, tools and infrastructure requirements, and the Canada SynBio Conference going forward.

1 Synthetic biology can be defined as the design and construction of new biological parts, devices and systems or the re-design of existing natural biological systems for useful purposes. Another simple definition presented by Stephen Chambers, CEO of SynbiCITE, at the 2018 Canada SynBio Conference is “Engineering biology to make useful stuff.” 2 March 6, 2019 Canada SynBio Conference highlights are available at www.OntarioGenomics.ca. 3 See Appendix I for the list of March 7, 2019 Canada SynBio Workshop Participants.

“Much is happening globally on the synbio front. Investments in synthetic biology

continue to grow exponentially, and Canada needs to act quickly to catch up.

Our collective goal is to create a foundation for leadership of synbio to lead

the bioeconomy of the future.”

Mark LePage President and CEO, Genome Canada

http://www.ontariogenomics.ca/


Discussion highlights and recommendations from the Workshop are summarized below. Discussion details are summarized in the body of this report.

Collaborative Programs and Support • Funding for research is increasingly cutting across different disciplines, calls are very broad, and greater

breadth in international calls is expected. In order to strengthen Canada’s global position in the development and application of multidisciplinary research, programs must leverage (versus duplicate) other efforts by encouraging more partnerships and greater/larger collaborations as well as enhance opportunities to develop calls with other countries. Canadian funders have been redesigning and creating new forward-looking programs with these things in mind.

• Canada needs a spectrum of funding mechanisms to cover breadth for synbio (large and small) beyond existing programs. We need to have a more nimble approach (i.e., sandbox grants), and consider joint calls between funding organizations such as Genome Canada and NSERC to leverage strengths.

Research Infrastructure and Foundries • Infrastructure for synthetic biology is often large resource sets (i.e., arrayed CRISPR technology for humans

and others). Commercial providers are making this available, but the cost is out of reach for many stakeholders and we need to find better ways of doing this.

• A national approach to advancing synthetic biology requires a two-pronged strategy: 1) training of highly qualified personnel (HQP) across the country; and 2) centralization of heavy resources in a few small clusters, with specific focus at different locations.

• The equipment, tools and infrastructure we have available should be mapped and then connected for researchers and other end-users. We need to consider institutes vs. foundries vs. incubators vs. accelerators vs. centres vs. networks, and we should try to leverage Canada’s super clusters and use Canada’s Economic Strategy Tables to help guide plans.

Vision for a Canadian Synbio Strategy • Bettina Hamelin put forward a Vision for a Canadian Synbio Strategy (see page 6) on behalf of the Genome

Canada Enterprise that would include 3 Pillars: 1. Enabling facilities and expertise 2. Seeding breakthrough technologies and capabilities 3. Bold mission-driven projects

• There was unanimous support for the proposed vision, and agreement that a National SynBio Steering Committee (analogous to the UK Synthetic Biology Leadership Council) should be formed to support development of the vision and strategy.

Next Steps • Create a National SynBio Steering Committee comprised of stakeholder groups including funders, academia

and industry to coordinate efforts and a sustained push that provides needed research and links efforts across the country, develop road maps and funding proposals, and develop a public engagement strategy.

• Explore and develop sandbox grants of $50-$100K to create/solicit the research community and encourage collaboration across disciplines and the country (Genome Canada/Ontario Genomics are committing to this).

• Commit to an annual Canada SynBio conference that combines a high-level commercialization/policy focus with academic led symposia, and includes an annual pitch completion to grow Canada’s start-up ecosystem.


OVERVIEW A half-day SynBio Workshop was held with approximately 80 people on March 7, 2019 with the purpose of creating the foundation for leadership of synthetic biology in Canada and mapping out a path forward.

INTRODUCTION − THE PRESENT AND FUTURE STATE OF SYNTHETIC BIOLOGY Opening remarks: Marc LePage, President and CEO, Genome Canada

Based on what we have heard and seen at the conference, we’ve seen tremendous progression in the field of Synthetic Biology across Canada in the last year. However, much is happening globally on the synbio front. Investments in synthetic biology continue to grow exponentially, and Canada needs to act quickly to catch up.

Our collective goal is to create a foundation for leadership of synbio to lead the bioeconomy of the future. We have the right people in the room to begin to create a roadmap and determine next steps to achieve our goals.

COLLABORATIVE PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT Marc LePage, Genome Canada (moderator), Alejandra de Almedia, NSERC, Danica Stanimirovic, National Research Council, Ted Hewitt, Canadian Research Coordinating Committee, and Bettina Hamelin, Ontario Genomics/Canadian Genomics Enterprise

Summary of Presentations

• Ted Hewitt discussed the New Frontiers in Research Fund (NFRF), which is administered by the Tri-agency Programs Secretariat housed within SSHRC on behalf of CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC. It will invest $275 million over the next five years beginning in fiscal 2018-19, and $65 million ongoing, to fund international, interdisciplinary, fast-breaking and high-risk research. The NFRF is composed of three streams to support ground-breaking research:

− Exploration Stream – will generate opportunities for Canada to build strength in high-risk, high-reward and interdisciplinary research. Over 1300 applications were received in the inaugural call (Feb 2019), which was over-subscribed. The review panel reflects the cross-disciplinary nature of the NFRF; two panel members have knowledge/expertise in the area, and one has no knowledge in the discipline – which helps test the proposals by asking the ‘dumb’ questions.

− Transformation Stream – will be next and much bigger ($20M+ over 4-6 years). This stream will provide large-scale support for Canada to build strength and leadership in interdisciplinary and transformative research. They also need to be convergent, trans-disciplinary, and will need deep technical knowledge, but also cross border. The program will be announced in the next 8 weeks.

− International Stream – will enhance opportunities for Canadian researchers to participate in research with international partners.

All programs are open to international co-applicants, and funding can go to them. (THIS IS NEW!!!) Canada is taking a leading-edge approach on this – providing funds to work with other countries and to develop calls with other countries – to strengthen Canada’s global position. Also open to join funding programs with international funders. More information on Equity, diversity and inclusion is required across funding streams and criteria are built right into the programs. The Tri-Council is keen on promoting research with indigenous


researchers, however there is no tolerance for helicopter research; projects need active participation of the communities.

• Alejandra de Almedia discussed NSERC’s mandate to consolidate 6 partnership programs into 1 new program – soon to be announced. It will include a broader array of partners and an open approach with more flexible co-funding requirements to encourage more partnerships and greater/larger collaborations. This new program will be opening up to other organizations (private, public and non-profit), and will consider different cash costs based on the size of the companies and partners. NSERC may provide 90-100%, and is aiming to be ready for launch of the new program within the next few months.

• Danica Stanimirovic discussed the development of three new special funding programs for NRC’s Challenge Program, including: Health; Energy Materials; High Speed Networks for Northern Communities; and AI for Design (to help the other 3 programs). All of these programs are collaborative and multidisciplinary, and NRC has established a national program office for infrastructure for RFAs and administration.

The Health Challenge Program ($13-$15M/year over 7 years) aims to:

− Improve accessibility and affordability for gene and engineered cell therapies. It applies a forward-looking approach with a focus on identifiable strengths, long-term innovations (to build unique capacity like SynBio), and platforms to support the Canadian ecosystem (as opposed to specific diseases). The goal is to leverage (not duplicate) other efforts – i.e., synbio, microfluidics, bio-manufacturing, and disruptive technologies.

− Support foundational infrastructure investments, such as Concordia foundry, University of Toronto (living micro-system foundry (C-CRAFT), and translational research at Sainte Justine. Some investments have been made already, including in the Concordia Foundry among others.

− Implement a partnering and collaboration model to support larger scale projects that are collaborative in nature, and include an international focus – i.e., Germany, Japan, etc.

• Bettina Hamelin put forward a proposal to create a National SynBio Steering Committee to accelerate advancement of the field in and for Canada.

There’s a lot happening globally and investments in synbio continue to grow exponentially. Examples include:

− UK: has made synbio one of its 8 priority areas, has established a strategic plan and is actively working towards strong goals with a translational and commercialization focus.

− Singapore: launched a Synbio R&D program with an investment of $19M over 5 years − “…….not competing to be the best in all areas, we are competing in areas where we have an edge.”

− Australia: published a 10-year synbio roadmap to 2030 − “Australia cannot ignore the synbio revolution, but also cannot just copy what other countries are doing…development has to be tailored to Australia’s needs and create capabilities with a lasting impact.”

− DARPA: The Battlefield Medicine program supports military readiness in far-forward deployed settings by overcoming logistical obstacles to manufacturing and delivery of urgently needed pharmaceutical products used to treat emerging threats. They also have several other synthetic biology focused programs to ensure national security including Advanced Plant Technologies to ensure a stable, secure


food supply, and Biological Robustness In Complex Settings (BRICS) program which is designed to enable on demand production of fuels and drugs.

If Canada wants to lead the bioeconomy of the future, we have to act now in order to catch up. We have the opportunity to leverage an ecosystem approach spearheaded by the Genome Canada Enterprise and coordinated by a National Steering Committee.

Bettina put forward a Vision for a Canadian Synbio Strategy that would include 3 Pillars as summarized in the slide below:

Recommended next steps to support the proposed vision:

1. Create a National SynBio Steering Committee analogous to the UK Synthetic Biology Leadership Council • Makeup: across stakeholder groups including funders, academia and industry • Objectives: coordinate efforts and ensure a sustained push; develop road maps and

funding proposals; public engagement strategy development

2. Sandbox grants of $50-$100K to create/solicit the research community and encourage collaboration across disciplines and the country (Genome Canada / Ontario Genomics are committing to this)

3. Annual pitch competition to grow Canada’s start-up ecosystem

4. An annual conference that combines a high-level commercialization/policy focus with academic led symposia

5. Support a concerted effort that provides needed research infrastructure and links efforts across the country (through the Steering Committee)


Group Discussion Highlights

• Funding for research is increasingly cutting across different disciplines, calls are very broad, and we will likely see more breadth in international calls.

• Key question is how best to handle synthetic biology? Focus on a specific area (i.e., cannabis), or should it be a pillar unto itself? Opinions are mixed.

• Infrastructure for synbio is often large resource sets (i.e., arrayed CRISPR technology for humans and others). Commercial providers are making this available, but at 100's of thousands of $$$ for it. Can we do this better?

• Canada needs a spectrum of funding mechanisms to cover breadth for synbio (large and small). We need to have a more nimble approach (i.e., sandbox grants), and possibly consider joint calls between funding organizations such as GC and NSERC.

• We need HQPs and a strategy for undergraduate level education to catch up. Is there guidance for this? Can we bridge the AI and synbio side – this could be a huge opportunity.

RESEARCH INFRASTRUCTURE AND FOUNDRIES Presenters: Krishna Mahadevan, University of Toronto, Vincent Martin, Concordia University, and Bogumil Karas, Western University Summary of Presentations

• Vince Martin discussed Concordia’s Foundry. Original seed funding to establish the Foundry was provided by CFI, followed by NRC ($2.4M in 2019). Concordia also invested $2M for renovations, repairs, etc. Operational costs are approximately $0.5M per year, some of which is provided for through CFI and a synbio fund at Concordia.

Foundry resources can be used for training, to advance academic research, to accelerate start-ups, to assist biotech companies, and to facilitate public engagement (i.e., Foundry open house).

The big questions most often asked are: 1) What is the best business model for these foundries? i.e., service industry, service start-ups, work with researchers, or some combination of these? The Concordia Foundry does a combination; they also do a lot of training. 2) How do we ensure the long-term sustainability of our foundries? and 3) How do you share and open foundry resources? Still trying to figure out answers to all of these questions. In the beginning, Concordia Foundry did not share its resources. It is not a fee-for-service platform yet. It is a collaborative base with shared costs and results.

• Krishna Mahadevan discussed a Synthetic Biology Platform being proposed at the University of Toronto. Their vision is to create a network of synthetic biology platforms, each with a unique focus/application to host organisms; share parts (codebase) and best practices among the platforms and minimize equipment overlap. They are working on an application with UBC for two additional foundry nodes in addition to Concordia. They are open to other nodes with unique focus/expertise. Nodes can focus on specific organisms (e.g. anaerobic microbes at UofT, stem cells at UBC etc.) as well as specific parts of the Design-Build-Test-Learn cycle based on unique expertise.


They will apply a two-level governance model: local governance will oversee day-to-day operations and ensure user needs are met, and a National Synbio Governing Council will consist of the directors of all major Canadian Synbio Nodes and support the following activities:

− developing a standardized LIMS to facilitate sharing of DNA parts and automation workflows − support HQP mobility and training − support collaborative research through joint grants and annual workshops − Scientific and Industrial Advisory Board will provide general strategic advice to ensure that the Canada’s

Synbio Network deploys leading edge infrastructure and is at the forefront of synthetic biology research.

• Bogumil Karas discussed the work being done at Western University to advance synbio. They are developing a new undergraduate synbio program with a focus on synthetic genomes and synthetic microbial genomes. Synthetic biology modules are being developed now. They have a DNA printer for printing genes in the lab, and the program will include visiting speakers. Their aim is to bring all departments together – synbio is really great for doing this. Western has organized a yearly synbio symposium. This year it is moving to Waterloo (4.0). They propose that all synbio symposia are combined into one collaborative effort for greatest impact.

Group Discussion Highlights

• A key question is how many foundries does Canada need? The UK found they had made too many, and several sat idle/unused. Need to consider this and how the people of Canada would use the foundries.

• Some things can be centralized, and some cannot. When you start phenotyping, it gets complicated. We want to utilize the expertise at different foundries, and minimize the duplication or overlap.

• A key issue and a funding consideration is how will people use foundries. Cost recovery is challenging. Focus on the workflow that MOST people need. Then add protocols as needed.

SHARING EXPERIENCES – LESSONS LEARNED AND HURDLES Presenters: Kevin Chen, CEO, Hyasynth, David Lloyd, CEO, FREDSense, Naveed Aziz, Chief Administrative & Scientific Officer, CGen, Keith Pardee, Canada Research Chair in Synthetic Biology and Human Health, University of Toronto, and Ben Scott, Founder, Synbio Canada

Summary of Presentations

• Kevin Chen, Hyasynth − The company was founded in 2014 with the idea that yeast can be used to make cannabinoids. They were able to get things going with angel investors (Andrew Hessle/Ethan ???). They ran out of money in 2016 and things remained very tight through 2017 (little salaries, relied on small business programs). They filed their first patents and in 2018 secured a $1M investment. IRAP only gave them funding


once they had $10M in the bank (versus when they really needed the money in 2016-2017), and it was quite onerous to get.

Hyasynth is a leader in this space now. In large part they attribute their success to the fact that they were dedicated as founders (even though they had almost no funding), highly motivated and have put in 110% effort. It’s difficult to find the right expertise to build the right team. Part-time won’t work. Hyasynth had no IP issues, and don’t understand technology transfer offices – doesn’t seem to make sense. Tech transfer offices need to be more investor-friendly. They didn’t have that, and it helped companies to be free and clear to work with them. Money has to move fast and be transformative. Investment money moves very fast. The investment network needs to be part of the community. Vision is extremely important; failures do happen though, and start-ups and investors need to be ready and open to fail. There are a lot of failures and wasted money along the way before success is achieved. We will achieve more successes if we are open to failing.

• David Lloyd, FREDSense − FREDSense came out of iGEM competitions. Their iGEM Calgary team was focused on biosensor technology. Their major challenges were business experience, IP and funding. They started with 6 people, but they had no business experience and really needed mentorship and support. They were fortunate to have a strong advisory board and relied on ‘how-to’ training programs.

IP from the university was a barrier, and it was hard to find resources and expertise – they needed cross industry support. Some accelerators didn’t understand the bio aspect, and the bio ones were focused on pharma. We need to engage companies more in the discussion. IP needs to be free and clear to be investor-friendly. It took them two years to clear this. There were no funding grants that fund founders. They applied to every single student business grant. They were resource-constrained and overhead for the cost of space was a major challenge. We need to de-risk highly technical projects. They have $1.5M invested in the company now by really early stage investors (even before VCs) and more funding sources are required for start-ups to succeed (i.e., Singularity University in SFO).

• Naveed Aziz, CGen − There were 3 different nodes over 10 years old at SickKids, McGill and GCS. CGen was founded with funding in 2014 to bring the groups/3 platforms together. These groups have the capacity to sequence 40000 human genomes/year (at 30x coverage). Their objective is to fuel next generation scientific solutions by producing and bringing access to a critical mass of genomic data. In 2018 they provided service for over 2000 PI labs.

A key challenge and lesson for the synbio community is to centralize the governance. We need to determine how to take advantage of what we have, what can we do for all, and how to get there.

• Keith Pardee, University of Toronto − Keith did his post doc in Boston and has been at University of Toronto

for three years. It’s still early days and they are focused on getting the momentum going. Support is needed from more senior faculty. Keys include a cross disciplinary team and appropriate expertise on grants (i.e., international grants - Global Health).

Synbio in Canada is really a bunch of independent labs right now. They support the idea behind a national strategy because it will allow us to play to our strengths. We have to be nimble and meet opportunities as they arrive. We need people who understand the technical level and the trends in the broader community. We should learn lessons from other leaders (i.e., US and UK). There’s a huge role for Genome Canada to play here. Phased support is good because industry money is difficult to get. Self-assembly is really powerful – this is what is happening in the US; Look at programs and approaches elsewhere, e.g., Dept. of


Defense (DOD) in the US as well as DARPA. All branches of the DoD are funding. It will take a lot of different disciplines to succeed.

• Ben Scott, SynBio Canada − Launched last year in March 2018, SynBio Canada is a trainee-led organization working to strengthen the national synthetic biology community. Their primary mission is to create a space for the community to gather and share their ideas, news, and opportunities. They aim to promote Canadian research, advocate for dedicated training programs and funding, and assist in the organization of meetings. Specific work includes publishing blog posts and news articles and sending a bi-monthly email update. SynBio Canada’s biggest accomplishment is the creation of a Community Hub for synbio researchers and institutes across Canada to help develop a more visible and connected community. It functions as a very simple “facebook”, serving as an outreach tool for students interested in synbio, and helping to increase the profile of Canadian researchers internationally. Their leadership is now 12 students, postdocs, and professors, each at a different institute. SynBio Canada is interested in representing each institution in Canada to create a national community. Currently, all work is done on a volunteer basis, which speaks to the incredible enthusiasm for synthetic biology at the trainee level.

Recently, SynBio Canada joined with several other organizations to form SynBio Society Consortium – an international collaboration to enable the sharing of best practices, and learning how synthetic biology communities and the field itself can be best supported across the globe, e.g., European assembly of students and postdocs http://www.eusynbios.org/; Australia launched SynBio postdoc fellowships (Synthetic Biology Future Science Fellowships).

Looking ahead, SynBio Canada is planning to create a public Resource Registry of available physical and technical resources in order to better meet the needs of the synbio community. This will require input across the community, which is as simple as contacting SynBio Canada to specify the resources available. Through this effort, equipment can be more strategically applied, with diverse nodes of expertise across Canada – to enable the promotion of institute-specific talents in synthetic biology so as to compliment rather than compete with each other, and better foster inter-institute collaborations. To create a community profile or learn more visit synbiocanada.org.

BREAKOUT GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Following presentations from funders, proposals for foundries and facilities and lessons learned from the community, a few questions were asked of the participants regarding three key areas:

1. Creation of a National SynBio Steering Committee; 2. Tools and Infrastructure Requirements; and 3. The Canada SynBio Conference.

The questions were discussed by all workshop participants in each of nine breakout groups. A consolidated summary of highlights from these discussions follows on the next page.

http://www.eusynbios.org/


Q1. Steering Committee

a) Does a National Steering Committee make sense? 1. If so, what should it look like and what should the membership of the Steering Committee be? 2. If not, what do you recommend as an alternative?

b) What are the priorities over the next 12 months?

There was unanimous agreement that a National Steering Committee (NSC) makes sense, that there is a need for coordination and that the NSC can provide that.

What it should look like: The NSC should be a pan-Canadian strategic body providing a unified voice with the mandate to determine the vision and set the direction and roadmap for synthetic biology in Canada. In order to avoid conflicts of interest associated with funding and self-advocacy, it should not have a direct funding mandate – i.e., should not directly receive and administer funds. It should consist of representatives from key stakeholder groups with secretariat support from regional genome centres and possibly other organizations.

The group suggested that the NSC should be: • About both economic growth and scientific excellence in Canada • Inclusive to encourage collaboration and represent all stakeholder groups • Concerned with sustainability of infrastructure to ensure best use of resources • A high-level advocacy group to inform government policy and priority setting • A key point of contact focused on building both national and international opportunities

Good models to be considered: • CIHR epigenetics network: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/43602.html • CGen • National Network Centres of Excellence • UK model – Synthetic Biology Leadership Council has government, industry, funders and academia

– not a funding org, they do strategy, they built a roadmap and look after implementation by bringing in funding agencies already in existence

• Franchise model – overseeing company makes rules/policies/procedures while independent units do day-to-day running

NSC priorities should be: The NSC should establish a clear mandate with a clearly defined framework and key milestones. More specifically, identified priorities include:

• Forming the NSC Determine who should be on the committee in order to represent all stakeholder groups. Consideration should be given to:

− Inclusivity, representation and empowerment of all groups including academia and research, students and trainees, start-ups, industry (small, medium, and large organizations), funders, VCs and other investors, foundries, government, regulatory bodies, associations and other groups including indigenous communities

− Regional factors, representation and sub-groups

http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/43602.html


− Cross-sector awareness and involvement across organizations and disciplines (e.g., agriculture, health, social sciences, infrastructure, technological, research)

− International expertise

− Working sub-committees

• Defining the mandate, strategy and scope Determine the vision and mandate of the NSC, and establish a strategy with specific tasks and timelines. The NSC must determine the range and scope of its responsibilities and its role related to areas of priority including:

− Identifying key areas that can lead to economic impact

− Providing governance and coordination of foundries and resources, and advancing Open Biology

− Facilitating joint efforts between genome centres and funding agencies for specific programs around synbio

− Promotion/lobbying to government, and drawing attention and funding to synbio

− Informing government policy and priority setting as well as providing feedback to the research community

− Defining R&D priorities based on input from research community

− Identifying international research and funding opportunities, and building bridges to other countries for joint projects

− Providing a point of contact for industry and investor groups

− Coordinating the assembly of experts and stakeholders for a broader national roadmap as well as sector-specific and region-specific Synbio roadmaps

− Maintaining a knowledge-base to help facilitate networking and support collaborative funding proposals

− Leading the development of comprehensive and coherent educational and communications outreach strategies

Q2. Tools & Infrastructure

a) What are the infrastructure & tools required from the community?

b) What are the funding requirements to advance SynBio across the country?

We should build a community and an ecosystem for synthetic biology. The equipment, tools and infrastructure we have available should be mapped and then connected for researchers and other end-users. As stated by Naveed Aziz, CGen, “You can centralize governance, but you can’t centralize equipment/resources”. We need to consider institutes vs. foundries vs. incubators vs. accelerators vs. centres vs. networks. Gaps should be identified from multiple community perspectives; a gap seen from a synbio perspective may not be a gap in another community.


A national approach to advancing synthetic biology requires a two-pronged strategy: 1) training of highly qualified personnel (HQP) across the country; and 2) centralization of heavy resources in a few small clusters, with specific focus at different locations.

We should try to leverage Canada’s super clusters, and consider Canada’s Economic Strategy Tables to help guide plans. These Strategy Tables are based on wide industry-led input gathered by ISED, with 7 different areas of focus. Synbio is a platform technology, so this spans many areas. All Strategy Tables came up with very similar recommendations and can be used as a starting point in determining how to make synbio a focus. Consider Health and Agri-food as a first step.

Tools and infrastructure required include: • A Canadian code-base combining genomic data, open access to publicly funded parts, and protocols

• Computational (software development, open access) infrastructure for biological system design and data management

• Links to systems biology platforms for synthetic cell/organism characterization, e.g., genome-wide arrayed CRISPR library, proteomics, metabolomics, genome sequencing

• Making tools like CRISPR available to the Canadian community at cost to enable accessibility (e.g., Addgene model - https://www.addgene.org/)

• Makerspace to provide the facilities and tools for start-up companies and entrepreneurs to prototype ideas – what exists now is too expensive

• DIY labs – these become centres of innovation

• Training infrastructure to develop users

• Accessibility to foundries for all Canadian users: − Resources/funding are required to enable start-ups and research groups to send someone to

a foundry, and for the reciprocal people and resources in the foundry to work with those users/clients. Funds must be available quickly, when users need it

− Technical ability should be a central core platform that can move to the needs of start-ups − We need to consider business models for industry involvement versus just academics to

ensure sustainability − It is not practical to equip every foundry with same information, but foundries should be

connected enough so that information can be shared and made accessible beyond their core group

Funding requirements:

• We must build a funding ecosystem from small to large projects, and heed lessons learned from other countries. We need to focus funding calls on novel ideas/applications across project scales, with rapid funding cycles and review to action in a timely and competitive manner.

• Specific infrastructure funding and research grant funding are both required for current researchers and to encourage future growth in the field.

• We need to support students to ensure growth of the field.

https://www.addgene.org/


− We should provide funding support for Canadian iGem students, particularly high school students. Alternatively, we could replace iGEM with something different (National iGEM competition and sending a team Canada perhaps)

− We should consider synbio summer school and workshops for students

− We could rapidly establish a program for studentships and fellowships, which would have immediate national impact (e.g., consider the recently launched Australian postdoc fellowships where funds are split 50/50 between the government and host institution).

• We should focus on “disruptive innovation”, smaller stage funding, available to more people/groups. Consider a “buckshot” approach, trying to fund as many people as possible with small ~$100K grants, and should consider multi-phase seed grants.

• We need to improve funding for early stage synbio companies. Early seed investments are needed, and should support/include mentorship as well as money. As pointed out during the presentations, some early stage synbio companies were not able to get NRC IRAP funding until after they received private Venture Capital investment (i.e. when they no longer needed the public funding).

• Funding should support individual efforts and foster collaboration; we need to be careful about overemphasis on tools and physical infrastructure; ideas and the ability to act on them are more important. For example, we should not put all the money into foundries – we need to put money into fostering collaboration.

• Infrastructure must be linked to need and not built for its own sake.

− We must be careful not to mandate funding programs be hard linked to foundries unless there is demonstrated need and good fit. (e.g., lessons from UK – DNA synthesis per se can be provided by commercial providers at same cost as a foundry).

− Analysis of true need is required.

• Given that synbio is very cross disciplinary – sitting at the intersection of molecular biology, engineering and bioinformatics/AI/computational biology – it may not make sense for synthetic biology to have its own funding organization. However synbio needs to be defined and be part of/included in what existing organizations fund.

Q3. SynBio Conference

a) What do you want to see at / how can we increase the value of the SynBio Conference?

b) What are the gaps? (i.e., serving students, other organizations, etc.?)

The conference is seen an important part of creating a synthetic biology community – for capacity building, sharing, trend-spotting and fostering entrepreneurship. We can increase the value of the SynBio Conference with:

• More international participation; other countries are ahead of Canada. We can learn what has and has not worked, so including them would be valuable.

• More industry participation.


− Bring in more biotechs – large and small − Consider a partnership forum. − Also consider more clearly identifying industry participants – e.g., distinct name badges

with ribbons, etc. − Support regional versions of the meeting or satellite meetings to reflect varied receptor

industries.

• Consider expanding the meeting to two days: − Consider alternative formats: perhaps a day focused on industry and partnerships and

another day on science. Offer a training workshop for specific synbio skills. − Merge/incorporate the symposia into the conference (Western, Toronto, Waterloo, etc.,

and perhaps even the GPWrite synbio symposium) − Bring in other sectors and communities to the conference (e.g., AI, stem cells, IT, cannabis,

international, etc.) − Include more about ethics and engagement with the public. Also consider a public

engagement initiative(s) as part of the conference

• Dedicate more time to fostering entrepreneurship and featuring tangible successes. − We need to see more success stories – should be a greater part of the conference. − Pitch competitions are a good feature to show the advantage of using synbio to others.

They demonstrate momentum. − Consider a networking and pitch competition combined (i.e. Shark Tank style, with more

time for investors, startups, and attendees to meet and chat)

− Build a network of founders. Get founders of synbio start-ups into a room and get their perspectives. Feature another pitch competition and organize a founders meeting along with that.

− Consider pitches by academics as well as start-ups. Offer a stream that focuses on pitches from labs to enable commercialization of academic R&D (i.e. like the start-up pitches this year, but focused on research coming out of academic labs)

− Consider a specific session for researchers/start-ups to have one-on-one investment/ business meetings with industry and VC attendees

• Allow more time for networking

Gaps

• More government presence and participation in workshops (e.g., Federal minister level, Health Canada, etc.)

• Inspire students more – including high school, by including them (look to stem cell strategy). Look to iGem teams to help do this and get kids excited early, but provide support nationally. iGEM/students:

− financial request is high: $30k for 4 month projects for undergrads, $3-4k is reagents and lab costs, the rest is registration and iGEM costs

− Ottawa model: will send to iGEM competition every other year − Western has a synbio club and then an iGEM team (because number of students interested

in synbio is more than can fit on an iGEM team – due to costs).


− Registration for provincial teams through each genome centre, can do one large project team across universities

− Network for undergraduates – one question they have is how to design projects to lead to a start-up?

• Should allow for feedback from VCs after pitches.

• Multinational companies: should consider what big companies want/need.

• Consider rotating locations.

− Could provide grants for travel costs.

− A roadshow needs commitment from funding partners to provide sustainable long-term logistic support. Let the regional programming committees decide the emphasis

CONCLUSIONS

• There was unanimous support of the proposed Vision for a Canadian Synbio Strategy.

• There was unanimous agreement that a National SynBio Steering Committee should be formed to support development of the proposed vision.

• The committee should be comprised of stakeholder groups including funders, academia and industry to coordinate efforts and a sustained push that provides needed research and links efforts across the country, develop road maps and funding proposals, and develop a public engagement strategy.

• There was agreement that there should be an annual Canada SynBio conference that combines a high-level commercialization/policy focus with academic led symposia, and includes an annual pitch competition to grow Canada’s start-up ecosystem.

• Genome Canada/Ontario Genomics have embraced the development of sandbox grants of $50-$100K to create/solicit the research community and encourage collaboration across disciplines and the country.

• This 2019 Canada SynBio Workshop report together with the report from the 2018 Canada SynBio conference and workshop (Kinder, Jeff and Robbins, Mark. The Present and Future State of Synthetic Biology in Canada. Ottawa: The Institute on Governance, 2018), will be provided to the National Steering Committee to help guide their work.


APPENDIX I: Workshop Participants

Illimar Altosaar University of Ottawa Melanie Arbour CNRC-NRC Naveed Aziz CGen Namrata Barai CGEn Cindy L. Bell Genome Canada Ron Boch BIOTECanada Maja Bracovic NSERC Grant Burns OBIO Sean Caffrey University of Toronto Amy Chen IGEM Kevin Chen Hyasynth Bio Aaron Chung Spindle Biotech Will Costain National Research Council Adrien Cote Velocity Tammy Craig IDT Graham Cromar Hospital for Sick Children Howard Cukier New England Biolabs Alejandra de Almeida NSERC Kathy Deuchars Ontario Genomics Dave Edgell Western University Evelyn Eggenstein Arbor Bioscience Donna Fleury Alberta Agriculture and Forestry Hélène Fournier Génome Québec Gail Garland OBIO Rajat Ghosh Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada Livia Guo University of Toronto Bettina Hamelin Ontario Genomics Samir Hamadache Western University - SinBio Canada Britney Hess Ontario Genomics Ted Hewitt Canadian Research Coordinating Committee Elyse Hope Genome BC Kelly Hunter Ontario Genomics Brendan Hussey Brian Ingalls University of Waterloo Mads Kaern University of Ottawa Bogumil Karas University of Western Ontario / Designer Microbes Inc. Sabrina Kim Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada Les Kondejewski Ontario Genomics Luana Langlois Western University Jonathon Langlois Lorenzetti

Julien Leblanc Innovation, Science and Economic Development Marc LePage Genome Canada David Lloyd FREDsense Catalina Lopez-Correa Genome BC Anita Ludwar Genome Alberta Krishna Mahadevan University of Toronto Serge Marchand PhD Génome Québec Richard Marcotte CNRC Vincent Martin Concordia University, Centre for Applied Synthetic

Biology


Scott McComb National Research Council Dennis McCormac Ontario Genomics David McMillen University of Toronto Ann Meyer Ontario Genomics Filippo Miglior Ontario Genomics Ali Nikdel University of Toronto Keith Pardee University of Toronto Laura Prochazka University of Toronto Nezar Rghei Ontario Genomics Laura Riley Ontario Genomics Nicole Rosin University of British Columbia - School of Biomedical

Engineering Benjamin Scott NIST Lori Sheremeta Alberta Innovates Rahul Singh Genome BC Annina Spilker Génome Québec Danica Stanimirovic National Research Council of Canada David Stuart University of Alberta Lucy Su Government of Ontario Donna Takacs Ontario Genomics Jordan Thomson Ontario Genomics Kristin Tweel Genome Atlantic Mike Tyers Université de Montréal Teodor Veres National Research Council Canada Donna Viger National Research Council of Canada Daryl Waggot Genome Canada Chen Wan Genome BC Valerie Ward University of Waterloo David Woodhall Mara Renewables Corporation

workshop summary report - ontario genomics€¦ · 2019 canada synbio w orkshop summary report 5 ....

Documents