Stem Cell and Cancer Research Institute terminated by McMaster University

McMaster University is terminating a high-profile research institute that investigates novel stem cell and cancer therapies.

The loss of the multimillion dollar Stem Cell and Cancer Research Institute (SCC-RI) may extend to its prominent leader as questions remain about whether Mick Bhatia will stay in Hamilton. Two other researchers - Kristin Hope and Karun Singh - are already leaving for Toronto.

McMaster and Bhatia tell very different stories about how a university board of governors meeting on June 4 came to include the recommendation to end the nationally known institute.

My vision was to have an international presence and supremacy in stem cells," said Bhatia. McMaster, in the end, in my interpretation, really just didn't have the appetite to go in that direction."

The university claims SCC-RI has run its course because its researchers weren't collaborating, which is the entire purpose of an institute.

They weren't working together," said Jonathan Bramson vice-dean of research for the faculty of health sciences. We put people together because we think they will work together and achieve a situation where the sum is greater than the parts and that wasn't the case here."

Bhatia says he can't possibly compute" that explanation, pointing out he has published at least one paper with every researcher at SCC-RI and the other researchers have done the same.

It doesn't make sense," he said. It's like saying the Raptors aren't good at basketball."

In fact, it was collaboration that lured Bhatia to McMaster from California in 2006 in the first place. He was working toward leading a stem cell institute there when Dr. John Kelton, who was dean of the faculty of health sciences at the time, made Bhatia believe it would work better back home in Ontario.

I was completely enchanted of the idea that in Canada you could achieve that level of excellence and there was support to build something," he said. It was a great opportunity that I thought couldn't happen here in Canada and yet here it was in front of me."

The institute was set up with $10 million from Michael G. DeGroote and, over time, got another $15 million from David Braley and $24 million from the Boris family.

We were really starting from scratch," said Bhatia. There were no people working deeply in stem cell biology ... you had to recruit from outside because there is no pre-existing expertise, equipment or infrastructure."

At its height, SCC-RI had 13,000 square feet of state-of-the art facilities, 130 staff and millions in grants - including $13 million from the Ontario Research Fund, roughly $10 million from the Canadian Foundation of Innovation and in the last fiscal year alone its scientists were awarded $3.28 million in research grants.

It had findings that were paradigm shifting for stem cell research, collaborated with biochemists which was a first for the field and took potential new cancer drugs into clinical trials.

John Kelton .... was pretty visionary," said Bhatia. He was looking for areas to be truly excellent and his definition of excellence was very akin to mine ... It excited me that you could do this level of science and there was like-minded people thinking about that direction."

But at the 10-year-mark in 2016, Bhatia describes the beginning of a rift between his future vision of SCC-RI and that of McMaster. It was at the same time Kelton retired and was replaced by Dr. Paul O'Byrne.

We got to a point where I saw this as a Stage 1 achievement, whereas I think they were feeling this is where we needed to be and they were quite happy with it," said Bhatia. I thought we could do more."

About two years ago, funding ran out for two researchers Bhatia had recruited and trained over 10 years, and they ended up leaving McMaster. He also saw no way to recruit the senior scientists he felt he could now attract at the established institute.

By December 2019, Bhatia said he saw the writing on the wall and resigned as director of SCC-RI.

To some degree its understandable," said Bhatia. This type of science and at this level is very, very expensive. It requires an immense commitment ... There is a certain risk measure that comes with that."

In the wake of Bhatia's resignation, McMaster spent about $8,000 on an external review which Bramson said concluded there was no collaboration.

It's a series of individuals who are operating independently," he said. Some of those individuals are quite successful which is great and they continue to operate independently but there was no value gained by having them work together."

Bramson said he doesn't know why they weren't collaborating and the review didn't shed any light on that either.

I can't tell you why people can or cannot work together," he said. It's their choice, they don't have to, you're not obliged to collaborate."

In fact, he says it's not in a researcher's nature to work together.

Scientists are mavericks," said Bramson. They are stallions, they are not trained to work together, they're trained to work independently."

He also said this happens all the time" about research institutes being terminated.

It didn't work out, I don't really see that as being a surprise," he said. Science is an experiment ... When you create an institute, you don't know how its going to shake out."

At some point between December and the board of governors meeting in June, two other principle investigators announced they were leaving.

People leave for their own reasons," said Bramson. Clearly, if they felt that they were gaining something from being part of the institute, they would have stayed."

Other principle investigators including Dr. Sheila Singh and Dr. Tobias Berg appear to be staying at McMaster and continuing their research independently.

The group was not the reason they were successful," said Bramson. Disbanding the group is not going to diminish that success. They're going to continue doing what they're doing."

No principle investigators responded to The Spectator's request for comment. Although Bhatia says the university made it clear to all that it was speaking on the institute's behalf. He was originally unable to speak himself but eventually got permission from McMaster.

For now, Bhatia is continuing on with his research here.

I love Canada," he said. I love McMaster."

But he added his priority is moving stem cell and cancer therapy science forward.

We'll have to see how that unfolds," he said.

As for O'Byrne's decision to recommend terminating the institute, Bhatia says, It was the obvious decision."

Joanna Frketich is a Hamilton-based reporter covering health for The Spectator. Reach her via email: jfrketich@thespec.com