Tony Pawson

[GordonH]

^^^Need to know.

Ah, thank you :)

That is exactly what it must be, otherwise they would have reported on it.

I find it suspicious, what with all of his contributions and notoriety... being so young, something is off.

People live and people die...... his death could be illness, accident or other.
Just because he contributed so much to research does not make him any more or less immune to death.

[BelieveNothing]

People live and people die...... his death could be illness, accident or other.
Just because he contributed so much to research does not make him any more or less immune to death.

All true :)

[A_Britishcolumbian]

this 'need to know' issue is extremely important to me, and as well it should be for everyone of us.
Dr. Pawson was a leading edge scientist, what he died of is of great concern to me.

A lesson for policy-makers from the life of Tony Pawson
by Paul Wells on Saturday, August 10, 2013 11:28am

Look how fast Ontario premier Kathleen Wynne came running when the chairman of the Toronto Maple Leafs gave $35 million to cancer research!
Who can blame her? Wynne’s rivals, Andrea Horwath and Tim Hudak, would have beaten the same path at similar velocity if they’d had her job. Politicians cut ribbons, and there hasn’t been a prettier ribbon all year in Toronto.

Now let’s see why Larry Tanenbaum was feeling so generous.

Larry Tanenbaum likes hockey. He likes it so much he bought a quarter share of Toronto’s NHL team. He had already given Mount Sinai hospital $35 million in 2006, but he started to think he hadn’t done as much as he could after Jason Blake, a Leafs forward who’d recorded two assists in the 2007 All-Star Game, announced he had chronic myelogenous leukemia. Now, the good news about that nasty disease is that it’s highly treatable: put the patient on Gleevec and send him off to practice. Gleevec stops the nasty cells from seducing the good ones, a process exploited by a general class of drugs called “protein kinase inhibitors.” These molecules are so life-saving and profitable that the drug industry can’t stop salivating.

And guess where the work that made Gleevec possible was done. No, guess.

The drug that allowed Mr. Blake to fight the disease while continuing to play professional hockey, which is known commercially as Gleevec, was born of a breakthrough by Tony Pawson, a star researcher at the Lunenfeld Institute at Mount Sinai Hospital.

“When Jason was treated with that, he thanked me for my involvement in Lunenfeld,” Mr. Tanenbaum recalled.

Everything I’ve recounted above — the gift, the ceremony, the Ontario Premier 100-yard dash — happened in late June. Six weeks ago. Tony Pawson died this week, and it’s an awful thing. But it would be an especially awful thing if we did not realize that his legacy is rightly counted, not in fancy syllables and exotic prizes, but in thousands of lives saved and billions of dollars of high-tech industrial activity. Governments want to save lives and make work, and citizens elect governments that do both well. If I were a politician, I would note the wind sprint Kathleen Wynne ran at the end of Pawson’s work — and seek to begin more work that might have comparable results.

So what’s the secret with Pawson? What Special Cancer-Blocking Target Fund did the work? It’s not as though he was ever shy about telling anyone who asked. I met him in 2005 and we talked about science funding. He talked about science funding all the time. But his secret was so deeply prosaic a generation of policy-makers has been hesitant to learn from it.

Here’s what Pawson said when he became the first Canadian to win the Kyoto Prize for science. In the early 1970s in his native England he became interested in work a colleague was doing on the Rous sarcoma virus, which occurs in chickens and can turn a whole Petri dish full of healthy cells cancerous. How did that work? Pawson followed that riddle across 40 years, from London to San Francisco to Vancouver to Toronto, and when he won the second-biggest prize you can win for doing that sort of thing, he said this:

Remarkably, the basic science that has been pursued over several decades into the nature of cell communication, and the mis-wiring of signaling pathways in disease, is starting to yield new targeted therapies that are changing the way that we treat cancers for the better, and will be applicable to many human ailments. Although these are early days, I believe that this progress underscores the importance of giving free rein to human inventiveness. It would have been hard to predict that work on a curious chicken virus would have ultimately led to new ways of thinking about how human cells are organized, and to new drugs to treat one of mankind’s most persistent enemies. Governments increasingly want to see immediate returns on the research that they support, but it is worth viewing basic science as a long-term investment that will yield completely unexpected dividends for humanity in the future.

Giving a researcher money to follow his nose takes a level of self-restraint that does not come naturally to governments in these times. It’s more attractive to announce “funding for leukemia research” or “funding for the fight against Alzheimer’s” or “funding for carbon capture” or “funding for efficient new sources of clean energy.” Take that logic to its limit, and in 1973 a biologist who wants funding to study a funky chicken virus might never get started.

In February of this year, Pawson was at it again. David Johnston, the governor general, and Howard Alper, a leading chemist, had suggested Canada should seek to win more international science awards by increasing the number of Canadian researchers who get nominated. Pawson wrote a Globe op-ed, not available for free online, in which he congratulated Johnston for taking an interest in the matter and then said nominating good work won’t help if there is not enough good work going on. He added:

The ability of Canadian scientists to dream and make the kind of truly innovative discoveries that lead to awards is increasingly compromised by the declining levels of funding based primarily on excellence and vision, and the rise of support for so-called translational and targeted research, which is too frequently of questionable value. Canadian funding bodies are increasingly putting as much weight on non-scientific factors such as socioeconomic benefits as they are on scientific quality in deciding who to support.

They are entirely at liberty to do so, but they must realize that this strategy compromises innovation of the sort that will change the world. The funding that allowed me as a young assistant professor to do meaningful science 25 years ago is less readily available today, and without it we will not win more prizes, regardless of the volume of nominations.

It’s really important to emphasize that Pawson was talking about changes at the margin. And he knew his own research did well from the current system. The Pawson Lab accounts for $24 million of $63 million Mount Sinai has received from the Canada Foundation for Innovation (which pays for labs and equipment) since 2003; Pawson’s name also appears on $5 million of CIHR grants (which pay the operating costs of specific research projects) awarded to Mount Sinai since 2008.

Don’t quote him as complaining about “declining levels of funding,” because he was well aware that the Harper government funds science research at higher levels than its Liberal predecessors. He was talking about declining funding for what’s sometimes called “curiosity-based research” because, in an extended fit of busy-body statism I would have thought was out of character for a government composed of skeptics of the state’s wisdom, money has been shunted at the margin from peer-reviewed grants toward “targeted” research.

But the Harper government does not even need to heed advice from a dead science star it didn’t ask. It could, instead, read the reports from experts it appointed to study Canada’s science performance. In 2007 Maxime Bernier, then Canada’s industry minister, created the Science, Technology and Innovation Council to compare Canada’s performance in science and industrial innovation (two different things!) against comparable countries around the world. This is the best advice the government can get: the council’s current membership includes the deputy ministers of Industry, Trade and Health; the presidents of Western, Alberta and McGill Universities; and a brochette of CEOs, principally from the energy sector.

The STIC’s third report is an alarm bell. A previous government in (I believe) its 2000 Throne Speech promised to get Canada from 15th in the world to 5th in gross expenditure on research and development. Canada has fallen from 16th in 2006 to 23rd in 2011 (of 41 comparable countries). Business research — which the government called “a national priority” in 2007 — has been “in almost continuous decline for the past decade.”

But Canada has always sucked at business R&D and had begun to lead the world in pure science — and those days are ending. “With their significant investments in research and higher education,” the government’s own expert panel writes, “other countries are catching up and overtaking Canada.”

And while the macro policy and funding climate stagnates, a series of smaller decisions, mostly fuelled by the prime minister’s increasingly open contempt for the notion of human-caused global warming, has created a burgeoning narrative that this government hates science in general. Check out “The Canadian War on Science” on a widely-read science blog. Or Jonathan Gatehouse’s article in this magazine, one of the most widely-read articles we have published all year. And this collapse of the government’s reputation for science leadership will get worse soon, when Chris Turner, a prominent magazine writer who ran as the Green candidate in Calgary Centre’s recent by-election, publishes The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Wilful Blindness in Stephen Harper’s Canada. When one of the most prominent U.S. science bloggers poured mockery on the Harper government in Slate magazine in May, I reached the obvious conclusion: the ratio of funding to results is turning into a lousy picture for this government.

Now, one way to react to all this noise is to say that Green candidates and snooty U.S. bloggers will of course look down their noses at a Conservative government. But meanwhile hundreds of young researchers from around the world are voting with their feet. A decade ago many were mimicking Tony Pawson, moving from notionally more glamorous precincts — London, San Francisco — to places like Vancouver and Toronto to do dynamite research. Too many have found that the fancy new labs here are misleading because there is not enough money to do science in them. Too many are told they may study approved topics but not the ones that sound eccentric. Too many think they hear snickering when they ask about chicken viruses. They can move, as Tony Pawson might have 30 years ago, to some other jurisdiction. If Pawson had done that, the smiling politician at the top of this article would have had less to smile about. And maybe Jason Blake would be dead today.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/08/10/how- ... um=twitter

[oneh2obabe]

this 'need to know' issue is extremely important to me, and as well it should be for everyone of us.

Unless you're family, you don't 'need to know'.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

so oneh2obabe, if dr. pawson was exposed to some modified and virulent form of a disease or some invented entity or agent, you feel that his family should get the final say on whether the world should be made aware of this new threat.

your survival skills seem to be lacking. your concern for the global population seems to lacking. your concept of 'need to know' seems to be warped.

[oneh2obabe]

I'm sure if any of those presumed threats were of any concern his family would be the first to let the world know. As it doesn't appear to be the case, like I said, you don't need to know. Believe it or not, you don't have the right to "need to know" why anyone died if the family decides not to publish the cause.

As for my survival skills or concern for the world population, you have no idea what they are so I suggest you don't go down that path. As for "KTN", my concept of it is fine - you're the one assuming it's your right to know.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

you are seem to be assuming that dr. pawson's family knows what killed him. if that were the case, i would suspect that we would have heard something like 'the family of the deceased has requested the cause of death not be disclosed', which i would accept.

trusting the 'government' is not wise. it is my understanding dr. pawson was opposed to the 'government's' position and actions toward/against science in 'canada', so, if his death was a politically motivated assassination, i would not be surprised.

if you are aware that the family has been told a cause of death, or knows the cause of death, please share your source.

[oneh2obabe]

if his death was a politically motivated assassination, i would not be surprised.

All I can say is WOW ... you arrived at this because the cause of death isn't being made pubic?

[A_Britishcolumbian]

if by 'arrived at' you mean i accept that i do not know why or how dr. pawson died, and am currently looking at every concievable possibility, then be as stunned as you wish, i suspect i have no control over that.

we can plainly see that not a single person has suggested dr. pawson was distraught or suicidal, contrarily there are many people that are "stunned". "shocked" and "saddened". as well he was said to be "showing no signs of slowing down", and was "on top of his game". no one has reported knowing anything about the circumstances or cause of his death.

so many commenting on his death though seem to be bringing up the 'government', and the protest at parliament hill, regarding funding cuts to science.

i find it completely odd that not one but two 'government' offices, including a 'federal minister' published condolences well ahead of colleagues, coworkers and friends,

i know very well i am not the only one wondering what or who is responsible for dr.pawson's death.

it is our right to know if his death was a result of exposure to who knows what potentially population decimating entity.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

"On the occasion of renowned Canadian biologist Tony Pawson’s death, Paul Wells of Maclean’s notes that his research, which led to a highly effective anti-leukemia drug, wasn’t the “targeted” kind that the Harper government is so fond of funding, but the product (in Pawson’s words) of “giving free rein to human inventiveness” — in Pawson’s case, studying a virus that occurs in chicken — which the Harper government is not so fond of funding. Hint, hint."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... fferences/

[Fancy]

Quite common to keep cause of death in the family.

[A_Britishcolumbian]

some very interesting and peculiar wording from genome canada with regard to dr. pawson's death...

Message from Genome Canada on the passing of Dr. Anthony Pawson

August 12, 2013—It is with deep regret that Genome Canada has learned of the recent passing of Dr. Anthony Pawson. Dr. Pawson was truly a star in Canadian genomics research. His contributions to the scientific community and humanity earned him international renown, including the prestigious Kyoto Prize in 2008. In particular, he was recognized for his influential work on how human cells communicate with one another.

Over the past several years, Dr. Pawson led and contributed to several Genome Canada-funded research projects. Most recently, he was part of a new project funded through Genome Canada's 2012 Bioinformatics and Computational Biology Competition.

Dr. Pawson will be sorely missed by Genome Canada and the Canadian genomics enterprise.

http://www.genomecanada.ca/en/about/news.aspx?i=447

[A_Britishcolumbian]

dr. pawson's comments with regard to funding cuts for genome canada...

Canadian Genomicists Lament Cuts
2009-01-29 15:27

Researchers funded by Genome Canada, Canada’s preeminent funding body for large-scale genomics and proteomics research, are reacting with shock to news that the Canadian government is withdrawing funding from the 9-year-old organization. The government says the organization can rely on last year's money.

“This is extremely serious,” says Anthony James Pawson, a University of Toronto-based cell biologist who won the $550,000 Kyoto Prize in 2008 for his work on cell communication through signaling proteins, which has been praised for establishing one of the basic paradigms of signal transduction.

Since 2000, the research body has received about $600 million from the Canadian government and has matched that in cofunding. Genome Canada had expected about $100 million from the government for the year ahead. The cut to the genomics budget comes as Canada scales back research funding amid a budget crisis.

Instead, the government has offered nothing. "It's like we fell between the chairs," says the organization’s president, Martin Godbout.

Genome Canada currently supports 33 major research projects at Canadian schools and hospitals, with operating grants of around $10 million a year for each.

Godbout said the lack of funding won't affect projects now funded through previous budgets, but it will limit Canada's ability to contribute to new, large-scale genetics research projects. A lack of funding effectively stalls any new research initiatives, said Godbout.

The Canadian government says that funding from previous years was intended to cover this year.

“There is no cut to funding for Genome Canada," Annie Trépanier, spokesperson for Industry Canada, told ScienceInsider. “Genome Canada has received $840 million since 2000. Budget 2008 provided $140 million, which will support genomics research and Genome Canada operations from 2009-10 to 2012-13.”

But Godbout says this budget strategy is news to him. While money from last year's budget was earmarked to fund future projects, no indication was provided by the government that new initiatives would not be funded this year, he announced on CBC public broadcasting. Genome Canada has been awarded funding every year except 2006, when money allotted to it in 2005 was specifically designated for a 2-year span.

Speaking from a conference in Colorado, Pawson said after the news broke, “Genome Canada has helped build Toronto into a leading center—first among equals—for 21st century large-scale biology. Today, I’m in Colorado at a meeting on large-scale biology where Canada is strongly represented thanks to Genome Canada’s sustained support for so many research teams. Personally, for me this will have very serious consequences. We’ve ramped up a fabulous laboratory with support from Genome Canada. Now will we have to get rid of it?”

http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2009/ ... ament-cuts

[A_Britishcolumbian]

Mount Sinai mourns the passing of Dr. Tony Pawson

The scientific community has joined Mount Sinai in expressing its profound sadness at the passing of Dr. Tony Pawson, a giant in the world of medical research and a beloved colleague and friend to so many.

Dr. Pawson was one of this country’s most respected and accomplished scientists, a truly brilliant researcher and leader at Mount Sinai’s Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute. His research revolutionized our understanding of the way our cells communicate and impacted the treatment of a range of diseases. In the many years he dedicated his studies into deciphering the basic machinery of cellular organization, he became one of the world’s top 25 cited scientists in his field.

“As we mourn this loss, we know that the memory of Tony’s extraordinary contributions will serve as an inspiration as we continue to pursue his lifelong work of discovery and making our world a better and healthier place,” said Dr. Jim Woodgett, Director of Research for Mount Sinai’s Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute.

Dr. Pawson authored well over 400 scholarly publications and was the recipient of many international awards for his research achievements, including the Kyoto Prize in 2008. He was the first Canadian scientist to hold this title. He also held the position of University Professor of Medical Genetics at the University of Toronto.

“All of us here at Mount Sinai felt privileged to work with Tony. The international response from scientific leaders expressing their condolences is a testament to his profound legacy, which continues to impact patient care,” said Joseph Mapa, President and CEO of Mount Sinai Hospital.

In honour of Dr. Pawson’s passion for discovery and his revolutionary contributions to cancer research, the Dr. Tony Pawson Memorial Fund for the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute has been created. To make a contribution in honour of Dr. Pawson, please call 416-586-8203 or click https://www.mshfoundation.ca/sslpage.aspx?pid=479.

http://research.lunenfeld.ca/rssnews/?page=2019

[Fancy]

Hopefully the contributions will be heavy.