Canada stands at a curious crossroads: a nation that produces world-class health science yet consistently fails to carry that science across the threshold into economic life. A study of nearly eleven thousand federal research grants reveals the problem is not one of talent or discovery, but of how the system is designed — and how little it invests — in the translation from laboratory to marketplace. The evidence suggests that when Canada does fund commercialization deliberately, its researchers perform at rates that rival the best American institutions; the constraint is not capacity, but the
Canada Must Expand Health Research Commercialization Grants and Boost Overall Funding
The constraint isn't researcher quality. It's scale.
Mark
Why does it matter that Canada's commercialization-focused grants outperform basic science grants? Isn't all research valuable?
Mimi
All research is valuable, but they serve different purposes. Basic science builds the foundation—it's the long game. But if you want to know whether a system can actually move discoveries into the world, commercialization-focused grants are the test. They show you what happens when you explicitly ask researchers to think about application from the start.
Mark
The Fusion Pharmaceuticals story is striking—twenty years from lab to exit. That seems like an argument for patience, not more funding.
Mimi
It is an argument for patience. But it's also an argument for sustained support. Valiant had funding throughout that journey. The problem in Canada isn't that commercialization takes time—it's that we keep stopping the programs that enable it. The Proof-of-Principle grants were cancelled in 2015. Researchers who had oriented their work toward commercialization suddenly had no pathway.
Mark
You mention that CIHR recipients actually outperformed Emory researchers on commercialization metrics, despite getting less money per person. How is that possible?
Mimi
It's partly selection. CIHR's commercialization-focused grants attract researchers who are already oriented toward application. But it also suggests something important: the constraint isn't researcher quality or capability. It's scale. If Canadian researchers can generate better commercialization outcomes per dollar than a top American university, then giving them more dollars should amplify that advantage.
Mark
The report says Canada should multiply CIHR funding by five. That's a massive increase. Is that realistic?
Mimi
It depends on what you're comparing to. Germany spends more on university health research than Canada does. The UK does. France does. If Canada wants to compete globally for talent and discoveries, it needs to be in that ballpark. Five times sounds large until you realize it's just catching up to peers.
Mark
What about the intellectual property problem? The report mentions Canada lacks a Bayh-Dole equivalent.
Mimi
That's a structural gap. Without a clear national framework, each university negotiates its own terms. It creates friction and uncertainty. Researchers don't know what rights they'll have, what the university will claim, what the revenue split will be. Bayh-Dole removed that uncertainty in the U.S. It signaled that universities could own and commercialize IP from federal research. That clarity matters.
El Pulso
- Commercialization-focused grants produce patents at three times the rate of basic science grants, yet they represent barely two percent of Canada's health research budget — a profound misalignment between what works and what gets funded.
- Canada's federal health research investment is 48 times smaller than that of the United States in absolute terms, and trails the United Kingdom, France, and Germany even on a per-capita basis, leaving a world-class research base chronically under-resourced.
- The cancellation of CIHR's Proof-of-Principle grant program mid-stream sent a chilling signal to researchers who had oriented their careers toward commercialization, compounding structural problems with institutional unreliability.
- Despite receiving far less per-grant than a single American university like Emory, Canadian researchers actually outperformed on key commercialization metrics — suggesting the bottleneck is scale, not quality.
- Policy advocates are calling for a five-fold increase in CIHR funding, a national Bayh-Dole-style IP framework, and stronger technology transfer infrastructure to close the gap between discovery and market impact.
Canada stands at a curious crossroads: a nation that produces world-class health science yet consistently fails to carry that science across the threshold into economic life. A study of nearly eleven thousand federal research grants reveals the problem is not one of talent or discovery, but of how the system is designed — and how little it invests — in the translation from laboratory to marketplace. The evidence suggests that when Canada does fund commercialization deliberately, its researchers perform at rates that rival the best American institutions; the constraint is not capacity, but the will to scale.
Canada's health research system harbors a paradox: the science is excellent, the researchers are competitive, yet the path from discovery to marketplace repeatedly breaks down. A new analysis of 10,698 CIHR grants awarded between 2009 and 2024 locates the fracture with unusual precision — it is not in the quality of the work, but in how little of the system is designed to carry that work toward commercial reality.
The data are striking. Commercialization-focused grants generated patents 60 percent of the time and produced 2.5 patents per recipient; basic science grants yielded patents just 18 percent of the time, at half a patent per recipient. Ten percent of commercialization grants led to new companies. Yet these programs received only 2.1 percent of CIHR's total budget during the study period — roughly CA$10.4 million out of CA$5 billion — before being discontinued entirely.
The deeper problem is scale. Canada's CIHR budget runs about 48 times smaller than U.S. federal health research spending, and trails European peers by wide margins. A comparison with Emory University alone is instructive: Emory received roughly the same total funding as one-third of all CIHR grants studied, but concentrated it among far fewer recipients. Despite this disadvantage, CIHR-funded researchers outperformed Emory on company formation, venture investment, and successful exits — suggesting that Canadian researchers, given adequate support, can convert public dollars into commercial outcomes at exceptional rates.
Structural barriers compound the funding gap. Canada has no federal equivalent to the U.S. Bayh-Dole Act, leaving IP policy fragmented across universities. Technology transfer offices operate near breakeven. Academic incentives still reward publications over entrepreneurship. And the discontinuation of promising grant programs mid-stream discourages researchers from committing to commercialization pathways.
The story of McMaster's John Valiant — whose radioisotope research, begun with modest federal funding in the early 2000s, eventually became Fusion Pharmaceuticals and sold to AstraZeneca for US$2 billion in 2024 — illustrates what sustained, well-structured investment can produce. The researchers and the ecosystem already exist. What Canada needs is the scale of funding and the structural clarity to make such outcomes the rule rather than the exception.
Canada has a research problem that looks like a paradox. The country invests heavily in academic health science, produces world-class discoveries, and ranks among the top innovation ecosystems globally. Yet when those discoveries reach the marketplace, something breaks. A new analysis of nearly 11,000 Canadian health research grants awarded over fifteen years reveals the gap is not in the quality of the science—it is in how the system channels that science toward commercial reality.
Researchers at McMaster University examined 10,698 grants distributed by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research between 2009 and 2024, focusing on three categories: grants explicitly designed for commercialization, grants aimed at technology development, and grants supporting basic science. The findings were stark. Commercialization-focused grants produced patents at a rate of 60 percent. Technology development grants managed 30 percent. Basic science grants, 18 percent. When the researchers looked deeper—at company formation, venture funding, and successful exits—the pattern held. Ten percent of commercialization-focused grants led to new companies. The other categories barely registered.
The disparity in output per dollar was even more telling. Commercialization-focused grants generated 2.5 patents per recipient. Technology grants produced roughly one patent per recipient. Basic science grants yielded half a patent per recipient. This concentration of output among a small number of highly productive researchers suggests that targeted funding works. It attracts and surfaces researchers oriented toward turning discovery into product. Yet Canada invests only a fraction of its health research budget in such programs. The Proof-of-Principle commercialization grants, which ran from 2009 to 2015, represented just 2.1 percent of total CIHR funding during that period—roughly CA$10.4 million of a CA$5 billion pool. The program was then discontinued, likely discouraging researchers who had oriented their work toward commercialization in anticipation of future support.
The real constraint, however, is not program design but sheer scale. In 2023–2024, the United States federal government spent US$48 billion on health science research. Canada's CIHR budget that year was CA$1.37 billion—roughly 48 times smaller. Even accounting for population differences, the gap is severe. The United Kingdom invested approximately CA$3.3 billion through its National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council. France allocated CA$3.2 billion. Germany, CA$6.8 billion. To compete globally, the researchers argue, Canada should multiply its federal health research funding by a factor of five.
A comparison with a single American university underscores the point. Emory University in Atlanta received roughly the same total funding as the one-third of all CIHR grants analyzed in this study—approximately US$5 billion. Yet the distribution was radically different. CIHR spread its funding across 4,876 recipients, averaging about US$1 million each. Emory concentrated its funding among 1,038 recipients, averaging US$4.6 million each. Despite similar total investment, CIHR recipients actually outperformed Emory researchers on several commercialization metrics: they formed companies at higher rates, secured more venture investment, and achieved more successful exits. The funding efficiency ratio—a measure of how much public research funding translates into downstream private investment—was 0.35 for CIHR versus 0.034 for Emory. This suggests that Canadian researchers, given adequate support, can convert public investment into commercial success at rates that rival or exceed their American counterparts.
The barriers are structural. Canada lacks a federal equivalent to the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, which transformed American academic research by allowing universities to retain intellectual property rights from federally funded work. Instead, each Canadian university sets its own IP policy, creating variation and uncertainty. Technology transfer offices across the country operate near breakeven, generating only US$53 million in patent and licensing revenue nationwide in 2017. Many promising inventions remain uncommercialized. The academic promotion system still rewards publications far more than entrepreneurship, discouraging researchers from pursuing commercialization even when they have the capacity. And when grant programs do exist, their discontinuity—like the cancellation of the Proof-of-Principle grants mid-stream—sends a signal that commercialization is not a sustained priority.
One case illustrates what is possible when the system works. Professor John Valiant at McMaster began investigating radioisotopes in the early 2000s with funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. His work led to the creation of the Centre for Probe Development and Commercialization in 2008. In 2017, Fusion Pharmaceuticals was launched with US$25 million in Series A funding from Johnson & Johnson. Additional rounds followed. In March 2024, AstraZeneca acquired the company for US$2 billion, plus US$400 million in milestone payments. The journey from lab discovery to billion-dollar exit took more than two decades. It required sustained funding, institutional support, and a researcher willing to bridge the gap between science and commerce. It also required luck—the kind of luck that becomes more likely when the system is designed to find and nurture it.
The policy path forward is clear. Canada should significantly expand commercialization-focused grant programs within CIHR, attracting more researchers to the space and surfacing those with commercial potential. It should increase overall health research funding to a scale commensurate with global peers. It should establish a national intellectual property framework that reduces uncertainty and transaction costs. And it should strengthen technology transfer capacity at universities, moving beyond the current model of underfunded offices operating at breakeven. The research quality is there. The ecosystem is there. What is missing is the scale of investment and the structural clarity to turn discovery into economic impact.
Citas Notables
The opportunity to close the gap is real, and the policy levers to do so well understood.— Study authors, on Canada's ability to improve commercialization outcomes
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) ↗
Economy & Finance