Offers of collaboration ‘have been massive’

An interview with Dr. Mick Bhatia, Director and Senior Scientist of the Stem

Cell and Cancer Research Institute (SCC-RI), at McMaster University

Q. The stem cell and cancer research institute is just over a year old now. Will it

remain at McMaster campus in Westdale or is the intent to locate it eventually at

the innovation park?

A. The Institute depends on interactions with other research and clinical

departments, so its geography is really irrelevant to its function and the impact

we envision for Canada.

Q. What's the staff complement now? Do you anticipate more hires -- financing

and other considerations permitting?

A. I moved my team from the Robarts Research Institute and therefore started

with a staff of 25. Within less than 2 years, we recruited 4 additional Faculty

members who operate as scientists towards research-intensive goals within the

Institute. Their staff and programs are just getting off the ground, but we’re

already at 40 members and rapidly growing. I anticipate with the new Braley

project and the ramp-up of the junior PIs that by the end of this year we would be

above our originally envisioned capacity of 50. It’s important to note, these

members are of the highest quality, eg. postdoctoral fellows and post-MD fellows

and, although we’re always on the lookout for excellent students, graduate

students comprise a smaller proportion of our complement than most

centres/departments at McMaster.
Q. An astonishing amount of stem cell research is going on around the world,

with new findings reported daily, it seems. What do you consider McMaster's

strengths and contributions are in this research?

A. The SCC-RI strength will clearly lie in understanding basic principles that

govern human (not mouse) stem cell biology. We intend to work strategically with

the clinical departments so that these basic principles can be focused on

applications, diagnostics, biomarkers, etc., for patient care. There lies the

strength that McMaster has already established … the Institute simply will act as

a catalyst to move these things forward.

Q. How onerous are the demands on your time with requests for speaking and

presentation engagements and interviews, particularly after the Nature article

and similar publications about McMaster’s niche-microenvironment findings?

A. Very. As Director and Senior Scientist of one of the largest programs within

the Institute, there are immense demands on my time, and unfortunately I’ve had

to prioritize. Obviously this doesn’t always make people happy, but it’s important

for me, personally, to increase McMaster’s profile in the context of the new

initiatives of the Institute. On average, I’m invited to close to 20 international

conferences per year, but am able to attend less than half. Now, with more senior

postdocs and PIs recruited into the Institute, the invitations that I’m unable to

accept will be offered to them so that McMaster is able to increase its interactions

and gain international acknowledgement of our vision and efforts.

Q. With McMaster occupying a leading-edge position, has this resulted in any

new or unanticipated research collaboration as a result?

A.The offers for collaboration have been massive. We have collaborations at the

level of Institutes: Howard Hughes in Seattle, Harvard Stem Cell Institute, etc.,

and are working at further defining these in the next year.

Q. In the past, you have said that a concern with U.S. relocation offers was the

heavy demands of administration. Have you been able to manage and yet stay

close to your science and maintain a hands-on research capacity at McMaster?

A. I believe the administrative demands are more than I had anticipated, but in

the end will be fruitful for McMaster and the Institute. As Director and Scientist,

I’m always torn between the two, but feel there’s a greater understanding of the

support needed to sustain a research-intensive institute at McMaster. This is new

for everyone at McMaster, so we learn as we go.

Q. How much annual spending is being directed to stem cell research in

Canada? Is that spending comparable to or lagging that of other countries?

A. The amount of money put toward basic research in Canada, irrespective of

stem cell research or other, is staggeringly low. I believe independent evaluators

have recently put out an article in Nature making these comparisons, and in the

end the analysis shows we are not close to being at par with countries in Europe,

or with the United States on a per/scientist capita basis. Internationally, agencies

and governments have not understood that work with human cells, and
specifically human stem cells, exceeds the norms of basic operation grants and

infrastructure grants that are available. I personally believe this makes it even

more difficult to perform human stem cell research in Canada, but this is also

why McMaster has invested in this area and I remain in Canada to ensure this

changes.

Q. In November, the federal government announced $25.6 million in renewed

funding over the next four years for stem cell-centred research and training. Has

there been an increase in public and private spending on human embryonic stem

cell spending?

A. Currently, none that I’m aware of, but I remain optimistic.

Q. The breadth and intent of the human embryonic stem cell library – the world's

first -- sounds impressive. How is the work going so far on the ‘unmasking’ of

gene roles in hESCs?

A. Yes, a lofty task indeed. We are getting some of the basic biology worked out,

but this requires skilled personnel and is the greatest challenge to executing this

goal. The robotics and automation for this project can be tested and, in some

cases, pre-exists. But the specific applications to human stem cells are rapidly

evolving, as is this field that changes weekly based on new discoveries around

the world. To stay in front, we need to keep on top of this on what seems to be

an almost hourly basis. This is a challenge for everyone in the Institute and it’s
important for all of us to acknowledge the uniqueness of this field in the context

of the science, policies, views, and even societal issues.

Q. How long might it take to interrogate these 26,000 or so genes?

A. How long? Hopefully, we’ll know soon.