Life Sciences BC (LSBC) is a not-for-profit sector association dedicated to advancing British Columbia’s life sciences ecosystem through strategic initiatives at the local, national, and international levels. LSBC drives economic growth in the province by providing leadership, fostering investment and partnerships, collaborating with government, and promoting BC’s world-class life sciences sector.
You’ve worked across global companies, non-profits, tech and life sciences. Looking at British Columbia’s life sciences sector today, what stands out most about how the ecosystem functions?
I’ve been in this role for almost seven years, and when I was interviewing for it, somebody asked about my “meandering background” and how it led me here. I actually felt then — and I think it’s proven true — that all the pieces of my background led me to life sciences. I’d worked across the profit and not-for-profit sectors, globally, across tech and life sciences, and on the research side. At J&J, I was on the medical device side rather than pharma, using digital and virtual health tools to help manage diabetes.
What that showed me was that every part of the system has very different business models and they aren’t always as connected as they could be. I wanted to connect those dots more. One thing that surprised me was realizing Canada, despite being a G7 country, really hasn’t had a major global industry player in life sciences. But now we’re at a point where companies are getting much closer to playing that role.
BC’s life sciences sector has evolved significantly over the past two decades, both in the range of companies emerging and the areas of research gaining traction. What has shaped that evolution?
The sector starts with world-class research and science. Once something becomes discoverable and commercializable, you need capital, talent, infrastructure, IP, data and adoption pathways to turn that science into companies and ultimately get products to patients. Increasingly, people are also talking about the role life sciences play in biodefense. Science knows no borders, so collaboration across Canada matters enormously.
Historically, BC was known as an antibody hub, partly because of a UBC spinout called Abgenix that was acquired by Amgen. Amgen maintained their presence in BC, building a talent pool that contributed to the creation of other companies. Today, though, BC is much more diversified. We’re arguably Canada’s strongest lipid nanoparticle hub; Aspect Biosystems is a leader in cell and gene therapy, and Kardium is now building manufacturing after FDA approval. Because of BC’s strength in gaming, digital media and technology, we also moved very quickly into digital and virtual health.
What makes BC’s approach to innovation and collaboration distinctive within life sciences?
One of BC’s “secret sauces” is how strong we are at bringing different scientific disciplines together to solve human health problems.
The first drug-eluting stent was chemistry meeting biology meeting medtech. Companies like Aspect Biosystems bring together engineers, physicists, biologists and chemists. Carl Hansen at AbCellera has talked about how normal it was at UBC to bring disciplines together, and you see that reflected across a lot of BC innovation.
We’re also an incredibly collaborative ecosystem. At LSBC, we bring together academic and research institutions, industry and organizations that support industry because the sector genuinely wants to engage with each other. BC is home to many people who came from elsewhere, so there’s a strong understanding that success requires working globally — through scientific collaboration, attracting investors and developing markets. Acuitas is a good example. They were the lipid nanoparticle delivery mechanism behind the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and Acuitas and BioNTech had already been working together before COVID. That partnership happened because the best science came together collaboratively.
Canada appears to have many of the ingredients needed for success in life sciences. Where do you think the country still falls short?
Part of it is cultural. We need to believe we can lead globally. There’s still a tendency in Canada to undersell ourselves when, in reality, our companies are reaching an important stage. Xenon has read out exceptional Phase 3 clinical trial data and will likely apply for FDA approval in the fall. Kardium is commercializing products now, and Acuitas has partnerships around the world.
During COVID, BC technologies were central to major breakthroughs. Eli Lilly’s therapeutic was discovered by AbCellera, and the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine leveraged BC lipid nanoparticle technology through Acuitas. It’s an exciting moment for Canada, but we need to approach it collectively across the country. During COVID, associations across Canada worked very closely together to support governments and health systems, and we now have many of the ingredients needed to commercialize products and get them to patients.
Historically, what has held Canadian life sciences companies back from scaling and commercializing at a global level?
Historically, Canada hasn’t held onto its technology long enough to commercialize it. We talk a lot about R&D, but we’ve probably been overweight on the “R” and less focused on the “D.” There’s also been debate around access to capital. Canada hasn’t traditionally had the same level of institutional capital entering the ecosystem as other jurisdictions, although that may be changing with initiatives like BDC’s $150 million life sciences fund.
We’ve also not always been known as a nimble ecosystem for adopting technology. Commercialization requires infrastructure — clinical trial facilities, investment, population scale and adoption pathways. A Phase 3 clinical trial is vastly more expensive than a Phase 1 trial, and if those trials increasingly happen outside Canada, technologies naturally move further away from returning here commercially. That’s why organizations like ours spend so much time connecting investors, researchers, academics and industry across the ecosystem.
Is Canada now beginning to build the depth of talent needed to sustain commercialization and growth?
Yes, we’re building generational talent now because of where our companies are. We have more people with deeper experience than we did 10 or 20 years ago. It’s not that nothing existed before — we had companies like QLT and Angiotech — and much of that talent has moved throughout the ecosystem. Some people stayed at Amgen, while others joined or founded new companies. That movement helps build expertise over time.
Talent is really about developing it, recruiting it and retaining it. People used to talk constantly about brain drain, but today I know people moving to Canada and people moving elsewhere. What matters is having a thriving ecosystem with enough opportunities that people — and their families — feel comfortable relocating. If one role doesn’t work out, they can see multiple other organizations where they could land. That’s why I see this as a positive cycle rather than a negative one.
