*+,-./.,#.01/+#..23,4$0 53,)607.%+/8 !!!"#$%#&'('"#)

Message from the CSPC Chair: Mehrdad Hariri

Dear Colleagues, the endorsement and guidance of the members of large. The Centre will strive to be all those things advisory and honorary committees, all of whom are and more. listed at the end of this book. I sincerely thank them all. Building the Canadian Science Policy Centre is well It is with great pleasure that justified: the Science, Technology and Innovation I present you with the The CSPC has provided a unique opportunity for Council, in its 2008 state of the nation report, points conference proceedings inclusive national dialogue on the main issues of to the insufficient channels for interaction among report for the second annual science policy across Canada, helping to forge various stakeholders. Canada must upgrade the Canadian Science Policy stronger ties between diverse science policy mechanisms for coordination and collaboration Conference (CSPC), held stakeholders. In order for CSPC to sustain the across areas of research, between science and policy, October 20-22, 2010 in relationship with the community, and act as a hub for and among academia, government, business and the Montréal, Québec. science policy discourse in Canada, we have philanthropic sectors. The report indicates that proposed the establishment of the first Canadian sustaining high levels of interaction among Spurred on by a belief that Canada deserves an Science Policy Centre. The idea is that the Centre stakeholders is a challenge for Canada’s S&T annual forum dedicated to science policy issues, the could work across sectors to enhance networking, community, and that building innovation networks 2010 Conference’s motto was “Building Bridges for collaboration and cooperation among big business, beyond our borders is an important key to success. the Future of Science Policy.” CSPC 2010 featured SMEs, academia, governments, and different more than 60 speakers, 13 panels and 3 workshops, research sectors to create an integrated model of The benefits to Canadians in pursuing this approach branded across 5 themes, along with hundreds of innovation, an imperative for a knowledge-driven, will be many. Leveraging our science and innovation delegates representing numerous stakeholders who innovation-based economy. The Centre would aim to agendas will support the continuing development of a discussed critical issues in Science and Technology create and enhance efficient channels of knowledge-based economy that will facilitate (S&T) policy in Canada. communication amongst science policy stakeholders, improved wealth generation, living standards, and to support and promote various initiatives in education, health care, and our ability to contribute to The CSPC 2010 themes highlighted some of the science policy. Finally, and perhaps most global economic development. most important issues of our time. Addressing the ambitiously, the Centre would create and maintain linkages of science, technology and economics and mechanisms for training a new generation of CSPC, as Canada’s most comprehensive annual global affairs is timely and critically important. The scientists to better understand the science policy forum on science policy, aims to contribute to status of biosciences in Canada, science policy in the process. We believe that the complexity, building a robust science policy network in Canada. I context of federal and provincial affairs, and ways to multidisciplinarity, and ever-changing nature of look forward to receiving your comments and develop a culture of science entrepreneurship were science and technology of the 21st century requires suggestions for the betterment of our collective among the many exciting subjects at this year’s efficient, energetic, and agile institutions to ensure effort, and hope to see you at the next conference, conference. None of this could have happened the interconnection among various elements of CSPC 2011, in Ottawa. without the generous support of 32 organizations and Canada’s innovation system, including society at

Sincerely,

! Mehrdad Hariri - Chair, Canadian Science Policy Conference 2010

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION – Message from the Chair 1

Table of Contents 2

Keynotes

Nina Federoff – Issues of Our Time: Rethinking Agriculture for a Hotter, Drier World 4 Marc Garneau – Why does an ex-astronaut get involved with politics? 6

Special Keynote Address by the Minister of State (Science and Technology) 8 Special Keynote Address by Minister of Economic Development, Innovation, and Export Trade (Quebec) 9 Special Lunch Presentation by Council of Canadian Academies 10

Increasing Canadian Productivity using Science and Technology 13

Plenary: Science and Technology as Agents of Economic Recovery 14 Universities as economic powerhouses: industry academic collaborations 16 Encouraging investment in Science and Innovation 18

Global Perspectives in Science and Technology 21

Plenary: Advancing Science and Fostering Innovation through International Cooperation 22 The Global Research Infrastructures, Research Collaboratories, Network-Enabled Science 26 Canada's Role in Science Diplomacy: Applying Science to International Challenges 28

! !

Creating and Retaining Scientific Talent in Canada 31

Science policy in a diverse society - Canadian challenges, Canadian solutions 32 Career Development (Workshop) 34 The Making of a Science Entrepreneur (Workshop) 36

Major Issues in Canadian Science Policy 39

Arctic and Northern Science Policy: Canadian Responsibilities 40 Educating Socially Engaged Scientists and Engineers 42 Federal-Provincial-Municipal Governments: Where is the science policy nexus? 44

A Glance at Bioscience in Canada 47

Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industry: Challenges, Opportunities, and Policy Options 48 Bioenergy is an emerging field: Is it the coming revolution in energy production? 50 Biodiversity: Are existing policies adapting to current challenges? 52

Special Workshop on Knowledge Translation and Brokering 55

Closing Remarks 58 Interviews 59 CSPC 2010 Main Organizing Committee 60 CSPC 2010 Advisory Committee 61 CSPC 2010 Honorary Committee 62 CSPC 2010 Volunteers 63 CSPC 2010 Community Sponsors 64

! Issues of Our Time: Rethinking Agriculture for a Hotter, Drier World

Chair Pierre Noreau - President, Association francophone pour le savoir (ACFAS)

Speaker Dr. Nina Fedoroff - Willaman Professor of the Life Sciences, Evan Pugh Professor, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University ! question, “How do we, as scientists and Fedoroff claims, has given way under the policy makers, begin to think and act on such stress of feeding such a large human a global scale to address such complicated population. The loss of biodiversity, she says, crosscutting problems?” is already at catastrophic levels and continues to accelerate. This is not only apparent on Food security, Fedoroff pointed out, is an old land, but also in our water systems, as the use problem: in the early 19th century, science of fertilizers has taken its toll on our oceans, entered agriculture in earnest when scientists rivers, and lakes. such as Evan Pugh made breakthroughs in analyzing the fundamental nutritional Whereas we once had on average an acre of requirements of plants, and agricultural arable land per person, we now have only a advancements have been driven by science half-acre of arable land per person. With the Dr. Nina Fedoroff, Penn State professor, and technology ever since. New technologies population continuing to rise and urbanize, former Science and Technology advisor to the and applications, such as commercialized we can only expect those numbers to decrease US Secretary of State, a 2006 National Medal fertilizer production and the mechanization of further. Fedoroff cautioned us to avoid the of Science winner in the field of biological crop harvesting, have increased crop yield slippery slope of inaction that would allow sciences, and incoming president of the while reducing manual labour. Well before climate change to exacerbate the problem of American Association for the Advancement these advancements, Fedoroff reminded food security. Unless greenhouse gas of Science, gave the first keynote address at everyone, humans increased crop yield reduction plans are maximally effective, we CSPC 2010. Her address focussed on what through selective breeding. For example, our expect to see a rise in the amount of CO2 in she called “arguably the biggest challenge of ancestors created corn as we know it today our atmosphere beyond the presently high the century”: producing food for a growing from a species of grass. levels. A rise in CO2 will mean a rise in population while not destroying what is left of global mean temperature, which could have a our planet’s biological heritage and vital Presently, Fedoroff pointed out, we find debilitating effect on our crops. Importantly, ecosystems. Given the reality of ensuing ourselves in a tough position. The human seasonal high temperatures may even rise climate change, we cannot expect to feed the population of our planet is a little over 7 beyond the point optimal for photosynthesis. world’s future population with the current billion, and the complex environments that This rise in temperature might also lead to agricultural and transportation systems, as used to occupy vast tracts of land have given crops developing more quickly, leaving less today’s agricultural practices will not suffice way to the monoculture of farming and time to accumulate the starches and proteins in the coming climate. Dr. Fedoroff posed the livestock. The biodiversity that once thrived, that comprise the bulk of the grain. Fedoroff also pointed out that the change in climate should dismantle much of this regulatory could bring about drought, an obvious structure built around unfounded fears so as obstacle to food production. to realize the substantial benefits of GMO crops. The simple fact is that farmers migrate Fedoroff then asked the obvious question: to GMO crops because their yield increases what do we need to do? Her answer is that we while cost decreases, and such yield increases need to reduce our ecological footprint of our are exactly what we will need in the future. agriculture, reduce the use of fresh water, reduce agricultural pollution, and, The challenges Dr. Fedoroff sees to importantly, to adapt our crops to a hotter and increasing food production are difficult to dryer world. Perhaps the largest obstacle is meet, but not impossible. We need to make that we need to do all this while crops more tolerant to heat, flooding, and simultaneously doubling the global food salinity, all while reducing our reliance on supply. Fortunately, Fedoroff claims, we have toxic chemicals that kill insects and pests to developed new technological tool kits that can preserve our crops. An even deeper challenge help us deal with these problems, most is to increase the efficiency of photosynthesis, notably the tools of genome sequencing and the process by which plants convert light recombinant DNA technology, which we can energy to chemical energy. We also need to use to modify plants to, for example, confer use green technologies to provide energy to pest-resistance and increase crop yield. agriculture, and to develop new ways to use “greywater” in irrigation systems. However, some countries are resistant to modifying crops using these technologies, and Fedoroff challenged everyone to realize that have established regulatory structures to stop the time has come to take a broader view of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) from agriculture as a system that encompasses entering the food supply because they were ecology, hydrology and energy, not just food thought capable of harming human and production. We cannot step back to old animal health, as well as decreasing methods that fed an ancient world, but we can biodiversity. Fedoroff said than none of the integrate ancient wisdom while proceeding hypothetical risks have proved to be real through science- and evidence-based policy risks; no health problems have arisen from making. We must make better use of GM crop consumption. The claim that GMOs nutrients, energy and water in agriculture. She diminish biodiversity could not be further concluded by remarking that this “is a tall from the truth, Fedoroff claims, because order, but if there is ever an area that is right GMO crops use less fertilizer and toxic for science policy, it is this one.” pesticides, thereby preserving and promoting biodiversity. As a result, she argues, we Why does an ex-astronaut get involved with politics? ! Chair Yves Joanette - Président-directeur general, Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec

Speaker! Honourable Dr. Marc Garneau - Former Astronaut, Member of Parliament for Westmount Ville-Marie

wonder of the aurora, became the third take. “I remember on my first flight, seeing a country to have a satellite in space, and has million square kilometres of burning forest continued their drive into space as technology over Brazil … being done to provide land to has progressed. Canada was one of the first farmers,” said Garneau, going on to say that adopters of communication satellites after seeing things like this inspired him to bring realizing they had significant advantages in the issue of environment to his political enabling communications to the remote areas career. Garneau stated that there are two of the country; space science and technology reasons he is in politics: one is because there in Canada had been aimed directly at are not many scientists in the House of connecting Canadians. Commons, but that is where decisions are made, and the other is his strong commitment The Honourable Dr. Marc Garneau, former Canada has gone on to do outstanding things to the environment. Canada is, for example, astronaut, Navy Captain, Member of the in space, Garneau claimed. There are the second largest producer of CO2 (per Order of Canada, and current Member of currently two radar-based satellites in orbit, capita) in the world, and Garneau feels very Parliament for Westmount Ville-Marie, spoke built by Canada, for the explicit purpose of strongly that we need to do our part to help in for the first time at the CSPC. Garneau started remote sensing and monitoring everything what is a global challenge. by addressing the question “Why does an from vegetation to the flow of ice. To be sure, astronaut become a politician?” Wrapped up Garneau reminded us, this is the result of a Garneau then turned back to science policy in the answer to that question is the history of federal policy put in place to actualize the more generally, reminding us that we must the Canadian space program and the need for multifaceted benefits of space technologies. remember both federal jurisdiction and science policy, so the majority of Garneau’s Space technology is a political and scientific provincial jurisdiction when discussing these talk focused on both of those two themes. issue, and the Government of Canada must matters. The federal government must lead always pay attention to it, said Garneau. when it comes to research, he argued, and we Canada, Garneau said, created a space need to have a robust federal science policy. program for scientific reasons: Canadian “I went into space three times,” he exclaimed. scientists wanted to explain what caused the “I saw our planet, and I realized we are Science policy, Dr. Garneau claimed, has to aurora borealis, which they had observed for damaging our planet,” though not on purpose be formulated in a way that advances some time. Scientific theories had arisen, but of course, Dr. Garneau qualified; there are knowledge in the social sciences and it was difficult to confirm any of them while just so many of us living here now, and there humanities in addition to the basic and grounded on Earth. Canada, motivated by the is only a finite amount of abuse the planet can applied sciences; for as Garneau points out, a society must evolve on all fronts, and thus all paramount in determining how to properly hear when it comes to the science behind fields are important. Basic and fundamental handle the oil sands. In meeting our energy policy. scientific research is especially important, needs, Garneau said, we also cannot rule out Garneau claimed, because breakthroughs in the use of nuclear energy, as we may not meet Garneau also said the government needs to these areas can be just as important as those our environmental goals if we do not invest in hear stronger arguments from the scientific in the applied sciences. clean nuclear energy. This is a big policy community about why it is important to do decision, and it is a tough one, he said, but fundamental research. If those arguments are But, Garneau cautions, science cannot operate nuclear power needs to be part of the mix, not heard, then the government may make the in a vacuum. The process must serve society, even if it is just temporary. The NRU reactor wrong decisions. The reason he is in politics, such as when there is a need to focus more needs to be brought back to running order, he Garneau said, is because science policy is attention on specific areas arising from argued, because while Canada has been a important, and there should be more scientists government interests. Garneau said that this pioneer in building heavy water reactors and in politics. Garneau concluded by saying we shift of focus, however, should never be at the producing medical isotopes, we cannot need more scientists in policy-making and in expense of other areas of science. continue to be a leader in this area if we do the House of Commons, because only then not have an operable research reactor. will science have a greater impact on the Garneau then raised some major concerns for legislation passed. Canada, and proposed that good science Garneau also spoke of his concern for the lack policy could be a step towards solutions. His of participation by scientists in science policy central message was that there is an extremely development. The government needs to delicate balance to be struck between energy consult scientists, Garneau warned, rather production, the environment, and the than simply giving them mandates – which he economy. We have to deal with the messy sees as the current government’s approach. realities and come up with pragmatic Canada must allow all scientists to speak solutions, he claimed. Developing green freely, and to tell the government what they energy is important for the environment and are doing right and what they are doing the economy, and it is an area where science wrong. After all, Dr. Garneau claimed, the and policy can help us out a great deal. scientists are the experts, and we should be Canada must display environmental listening to them. The position of national leadership, Garneau argued, and not wait to science advisor no longer exists in Canada, harmonize with the United States. Currently, but it should be the case, like in the United provinces are going ahead with States, that the prime minister hears from the Above: Hon. Marc Garneau (left), Dr. Nina Fedoroff (right), and CSPC environmentally progressive legislation, but chief scientists in the country, who are of Chair Mehrdad Hariri (center) have a conversation following Garneau’s Keynote Presentation the federal government is doing nothing. course getting their information from other scientists. There needs to be a scientific Responsible development of the oil sands is advisory body, Garneau claimed, for only also a necessary component to meeting our they can tell the government what it needs to energy needs, Garneau stated, and science is Special Keynote Address by the Minister of State (Science and Technology)

Speaker Honourable Gary Goodyear - Federal Minister of State (Science and Technology), Member of Parliament for Cambridge & North Dumfries

be the opposite of the 1990’s “brain drain,” as for R&D more efficient at the commercial the government has established Canada as a level, launching a governmental review last place where the best minds come to research. year to address this issue.

Goodyear said that a significant turnaround The focus of the R&D review will be on came about two years ago when the Harper federal programs and activities that promote government launched the new science and private-sector infrastructure. In a year, the technology strategy, the goal of which was to panel will report to Goodyear, hopefully create jobs, strengthen our economy, and leading to better alignment between industry make life better for all Canadians. The and the government that supports it so as to strategy emphasized keeping the best and the improve the overall position of Canada’s brightest researchers in Canada. That was not companies in the global marketplace. The The Honourable Gary Goodyear, Minister of just something done on paper, Goodyear said, stakes are very high, Mr. Goodyear pointed State for Science and Technology within the as rather substantial changes have already out, and the timing is quite critical. Harper government, spoke for the second been realized. Science and technology has Economies that apply R&D to their products consecutive year at the CSPC. Even in the received more funding than any department in will become the future’s economic leaders. short year that has elapsed between the first these most difficult economic times, making Leading the way in these areas will ensure and second conference, Goodyear said he sure that our Canadian colleges and Canada’s prosperity. already sees the impact of the conference; it universities are plugged into the innovation has brought together stakeholders from across system to ensure that Canada continues to Canada and is making a significant lead the way in science and technology. contribution to science policy discussion across the country. The conference, he says, is But Canada still faces challenges, Goodyear about bringing together policy, government, said, as R&D in the business sector is industry, and academia. severely lacking, a fact continually addressed throughout the proceedings of CSPC 2010. Goodyear noted that 2010 has been a great We need to remain globally competitive, but year for research in Canada. In the past year businesses have not reinvested the gains made crucial research was carried out in our after the recent economic recovery that would Minister Goodyear speaks with the press following his CSPC 2010 country, with researchers from across the allow them to compete in the future. This is address world coming to take part in it. This seems to why Mr. Goodyear is looking to make support Special Keynote Address by Minister of Economic Development, Innovation, and Export Trade (Québec)

Speaker Honourable Clément Gignac – MNA for Marguerite-Bourgeoys, Minister of Economic Development, Innovation, and Export Trade

! partners. It was the 1970’s that began speech to Goodyear’s speech the day before, Québec’s development of research-oriented Gignac asserted Québec’s commitment to structure, leading to the establishment of the investing in fundamental research, and to this Québec system of innovation. Québec end, said the Québec government will invest undertook a massive catch-up effort during more than $1.1 billion by 2013 to mobilize the 1980’s, investing in industrial R&D and Québec, promoting innovation and prosperity. innovation systems. Since then these strategies have been consolidated, and in Gignac then discussed the enigma that, 2006 the government established the first despite high relative investments in R&D, Québec innovation strategy, aiming to make Québec has lower productivity gains than research and development the basis of other parts of Canada. He suggested that a The Honourable Clément Gignac spoke competitiveness and job creation in Québec. greater focus on innovation and during a special lunch session at CSPC 2010. commercialization could solve this problem Due to some miscommunication between the Gignac commented that his job, as a as Québec seeks to use S&T investment to CSPC organizing committee and Gignac’s politician, is not to make friends, but to lay brand itself as “the place in North America … office, the Minister’s attendance and address the foundations for increased wealth creation. with the lowest carbon footprint.” was unexpected, and he humorously Innovating in Québec means growing, apologized for his presence. Gignac then increasing productivity, and creating jobs, Québec’s surprising gain in jobs after the discussed Québec’s S&T goals and strategies, because Québec needs to face international recession, relative to the US and Ontario, can stating that CSPC 2010 was a unique competition. Québec and Ontario are be attributed to a low reliance on opportunity for everyone to share ideas and sometimes seen as in competition for talent, manufacturing, and a high reliance on S&T discuss science policy in Canada, and to but Gignac emphasized that the provinces research. Asserting their “green” brand, reinforce the ties between stakeholders and together compete for talent in the global Québec researchers are developing green decision makers. market, and that their interests are therefore aircrafts, buses, and other products to position aligned. To utilize their shared advantages, Québec as a centre for developing green Québec has been active in setting up science Ontario and Québec need to work together to technologies. These strategies, along with policy for many years, Gignac noted. In the develop their shared R&D and S&T measures meant to attract foreign talent to 1960’s the Québec government set up resources, and Gignac invited us to watch his Québec, stimulate entrepreneurship, and the structures and programs aimed at, among government execute this inter-provincial coming appointment of a provincial science other things, fostering cooperation between strategy to attract talent to Canada’s research officer should together ensure the research colleges and their industrial and community centres in the years to come. Connecting his excellence of Québec in the years to come. Special Lunch Presentation by Council of Canadian Academies

Moderator Margaret McCuaig-Johnston - Executive VP, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC)

Speaker Paul Davenport - Chair of the Expert Panel on Research Integrity, Council of Canadian Academies

The fundamental conclusion of the report is and integrity in Canada. Such a system must that all the actors partaking in research, from be unified and bring all the actors together. individual researchers to government All those that take part in research, in any agencies, must come together under a unified way, have a great stake in the integrity of the approach to maintaining academic integrity. process, and a great responsibility to maintain it. Our future success as a prosperous nation Davenport said the report found significant depends on our ability to produce and gaps in the current policy. To fill the gaps, implement good science, and if Canada were there needs to be a common set of values and to have research integrity issues, there would principles that balance transparency with be a great loss in the public confidence of our privacy. To achieve that, a centralized way of science. Davenport notes that we have seen Dr. Paul Davenport, former President of the handling academic integrity needs to be these problems in other parts of the world, University of Western Ontario, recently established; in the long run, however, and that we want to be sure that they do not chaired a panel of experts that produced a education about the rules of academic come to Canada. report entitled “Honesty, Accountability and integrity will be the best protection against Trust: Fostering Research Integrity in plagiarism. During a brief question period, Yves Gingras Canada,” at the request of the Council of questioned the motivation for creating the Canadian Academies. This report was The report recommends the creation of a new oversight council that Davenport’s report designed to examine and analyze academic entity, the Canadian Council for Research ultimately recommends. If there is no issue of integrity in Canada, as well as make Integrity, whose primary purposes would be integrity loss in Canada, he argued, it makes recommendations based on that analysis. facilitating research integrity practices and little sense to start importing practices from supporting the research community. This elsewhere meant to deal with the idiosyncratic The current landscape of academic integrity would be a non-governmental organization issues of academic and research integrity in Canada is best described as local and non- that would, while leaving rule creation and faced by other nations. Davenport admitted legislative, claimed Davenport. Unlike the enforcement to local institutions, take the lead that there is no evidence of significant United States, for example, which has a in integrity education and outreach. breaching of integrity in Canada, but argued national policy with legislation to enforce it, that having a council to monitor and maintain Canada’s approach centers around the local In conclusion, Davenport said, we need a research integrity would ensure it never rules and influence of research institutions. positive, value-based approach to research becomes a serious problem in Canada.

!

The Challenge We live in a world where there is a large gap in the life expectancy between those who live in rich, developed nations and those who live in poor, developing nations. This is neither morally acceptable nor socially sustainable. We know that the potential for innovation by those living in the developing world – scientific, institutional, technological, social, and business – can narrow this gap significantly. At the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health, we are focused on closing this gap by developing locally-relevant and empirically-grounded models to facilitate developing world innovation in global health.

Who We Are: The McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health is based at the University Health Network and the University of Toronto. We develop and evaluate new models of global health innovation and, working with partners, facilitate their adoption where they are most urgently needed. Our comparative advantage lies in our strong focus on engaging and supporting “voices of the south” to generate domestic solutions for domestic problems and the bright young minds of our graduate students and trainees.

Our Vision, Mission and Strategy: Our Vision is a world where everyone benefits from new diagnostics, vaccines, drugs, devices and other life science solutions. Our Mission is to develop and evaluate new models of global health innovation and facilitate their adoption where they are most urgently needed. Our Strategy is built around four pillars, each of which represents a critical dimension of the solution to the challenge of improving the health and lives of people in the developing world. Each pillar is ultimately focused on developing locally-relevant and empirically-grounded models to facilitate developing world innovation in global health. The four pillars are:

1. Global Grand Challenges Pillar, which helped establish Grand Challenges Canada. Grand Challenges Canada is a unique and independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to improving the health and well-being of people in developing countries by integrating scientific, technological, business and social innovation. Grand Challenges Canada works with the International Development Research Centre and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and other global health foundations and organizations to find sustainable long-term solutions to the most pressing health challenges. Grand Challenges Canada is hosted at the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health. This pillar is focused on institutional innovation.

2. Translational Research Pillar, which is focused on biomedical research for new diagnostics and interventions for infectious diseases such as malaria, HIV, tuberculosis and sepsis, and translating new discoveries into clinical trials. This pillar is focused on technological innovation.

3. Ethics Pillar, which develops and brings forward social and institutional innovations designed to overcome ethical, social and cultural barriers to the acceptance of new medical technologies and to improve the diffusion and delivery of these technologies. This pillar is focused on social innovation.

4. Commercialization Pillar, which develops financial and collaborative models to enhance the domestic and commercial production of health technologies in developing countries. This pillar is focused on business innovation.

!"#$%"#&$'()"#%*+'"(,$-'.'+$/.$*+0$ 1&2.'+&0$3334%#567"2*74"#6$ !*5&2""80$3334)*5&2""845"%967"2*7:&*7+:&(6*6&$ ;3'++�$:++<099+3'++-"%9%#567"2*7$

Increasing Canadian Productivity with Science and Technology

Science and Technology as Agents of Economic Recovery

Economic downturns can be viewed as an opportunity for thinkers and innovators to establish new paths for commercial success. In a knowledge- driven society research, development, and enabling policies are key components of this new growth. This panel explores ways to capitalize on an economic downturn to increase growth in science, technology, and commercialization.

Universities as Economic Powerhouses

Technology transfer offices and science parks are springing up across Canada and globally. At the same time, more and more academics are looking to industry for jobs, while industry looks to academia for the next big idea. With this in mind, this panel explores and evaluates models for capitalizing on the research output from universities.

Encouraging Investment in Science and Innovation

In order to remain competitive in science and technology on a global scale, it is becoming increasingly important to have strategic flow between business and science at the local, national, and international levels. It is critical to ensure appropriate investment in science and innovation. As part of this strategy it is important to ensure our system enables and encourages Canadian and foreign investment. This panel explores and assesses various models and programs that could encourage investment in science and innovation and enable quicker turnover from scientific discovery to implementation and economic gain.

Plenary: Science and Technology as Agents of Economic Recovery

Moderator Gilles Patry - President and CEO, Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI)

Panellists Chad Gaffield - President, Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) Heather Munroe-Blum - Principal and Vice-Chancellor, McGill University Robert Prichard - Chair, Torys LLP and Vice-Chair, Science, Technology, and Innovation Council (STIC) Genevieve Tanguay - Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade, Quebec ! making investments to increase their argued that Canada needs to develop a production of masters and PhDs. As such, common intellectual policy framework that Canada must continue to support the protects students, protects the right to publish, development, retention, and attraction of and allows ideas and talent to flow freely. world-class masters and PhD students. Robert Pritchard, Vice-Chair of the Science, Despite past investments, R&D as a portion Technology, and Innovation Council, of gross domestic product has dropped since explained STIC’s role to advise the 2004, and the amount of R&D conducted by government through the Minister of Industry Canadian small and medium enterprises on matters related to Canada’s science and (SMEs) remains low. Canadian universities innovation agenda. Pritchard commented that The session moderator, Gilles Patry, began need to reach out to SMEs and adopt similar Canada has done well through the global with three questions for the panellists to use strategies as, for example, Scandanavian financial crisis, and is in a position of relative to frame their talks: is science and technology countries and India. These nations have strength with its abundant resources, well an agent of economic recovery? If so, how developed successful strategies to connect educated population, diverse and globally so? If not, how can it become one? university research with the needs of industry, connected citizenry, and strong public and these strategies are worth emulating. finances; nevertheless, he cautioned, we Heather Munroe-Blum, Principal of McGill Munroe-Blum argued that provinces need to should not be complacent in our position. We University, emphasized how quickly the adopt long-term science and technology are challenged by an aging population, major economic powers on the world stage policies so as to avoid “roller coaster” lagging productivity, and a significant shift in are changing, the importance of innovation in funding that invests heavily in creating the focus of global business away from the driving economic growth, and the importance organization and institutions that are later United States, our largest trading partner. of academia, industry and government in eliminated due to lack of support. Science and technology must be the agency of innovation. Emerging economies are Additionally, provinces need to work together economic recovery, as it is the only currently making substantial investments in to develop policy frameworks for innovation sustainable strategy. Canada cannot compete education and R&D, she said, increasing their that inter-connect provinces and link in to on its size alone, but must work on being competitiveness on the global stage by federal policies. Finally, Munroe-Blum smart and innovative. Canada has gotten a lot of things right: strong existing areas of excellence. Quebec has knowledge translation and knowledge universities, top researchers, and a suite of made a substantial investment in innovation, brokerage. Tanguay responded by saying programs to improve our research capacity providing the largest tax credit system for Quebec has a strong network of organizations (such as those detailed by Munroe-Blum). R&D, reinforcing public research, that are responsible for working directly with But, Pritchard argued, we are struggling with encouraging the amount of research industry, particularly SMEs, and discussing encouraging businesses to invest in R&D, conducted by businesses, and reinforcing with them the kinds of university research despite high government subsidies; and technology transfer mechanisms. Quebec has being conducted and its value for industry. despite much research on this issue, there is recognized that it cannot change its strategy no clear answer on how to proceed. But since every three years, but instead needs to invest Danielle Tonguay of Trema Management it takes decades to create institutions and in a long-term strategy by focussing on the Consultants asked for a specific example of build clusters, we must remain consistent in province’s strengths. Thus, Quebec has an avenue of action that would translate our approach and look for innovative policies undertaken four new projects building on science and technology into economic and focussed on competition and investment, not Quebec’s strengths in aerospace, the life- social innovation, suggesting that the on entitlements. This will mean only picking sciences, internet and communications movement of graduate students into the winners, because attaining world-class quality technology, and green technology. receptor community might be an example. requires us to focus on building and Heather Munroe-Blum suggested that the maintaining successful clusters. Government Chad Gaffield next argued that Canada must notion of using graduate students beyond our should produce policies that help share risk begin to re-imagine innovation and develop a institutions and putting them into industry is a with entrepreneurs while engaging in strategic new vocabulary with new metaphors, re- strategy we have not used in Canada, but that procurement to help create market demand. imagining innovation as something new for it has been used effectively in Scandinavian There is also a need to simplify and the 21st century. The 20th century model of nations. Genevieve Tanguay noted, however, standardize how we connect industry and innovation was linear, with innovations that they have been using this strategy in universities, particularly with intellectual pushing out from the laboratory to the Quebec, though it has been slow in starting property. According to Pritchard we should marketplace. The 21st century model of because a) professors want their students to try to generate a culture of innovation and innovation is a people-centred model, focus on finishing their studies on time, and winning by celebrating these achievements, representing a paradigmatic shift in how we b) industry is, unfortunately, rarely prepared and taking pride in success. think about innovation. This requires a to accept those students. redefining of the university campus as Genevieve Tanguay discussed some of the existing at the heart of innovative initiatives taken in Quebec to support communities, as well as finding new modes of innovation. These initiatives are organized engagement to bring together the private, around four main policy axes: making public, and not-for-profit sectors. research more productive and competitive; producing, attracting, and retaining talent; During the question period, Alex Bielak of assembling tools that bridge the gaps between the United Nations University Institute on research and SMEs; and investing in key Water, Environment, and Health asked what mobilizing projects that leverage Quebec’s is being done in Quebec to facilitate Universities as Economic Powerhouses

Moderator Graham Bell - President of the Academy of Science, Royal Society of Canada

Panellists Janet Walden – Vice-President, Research Partnership Program, Natural Sciences and Engineering Council of Canada (NSERC) Lorne Whitehead - Professor & 3M Industrial Chair in Structural Surface Physics, University of British Columbia Paul Doherty - Director Center for Business, Entrepreneurship and Technology, University of Waterloo Kamiel Gabriel - Professor, University of Ontario Institute of Technology

address local innovation challenges. NSERC technology transfer: by encouraging more is currently the largest single source of grants PhD student projects to focus on short-term, for public-private partnerships in Canada, applied research projects. Industry and investing over $330 million annually. universities often work on very different Industry is involved and highly committed to timeframes. Whereas universities tend to devoting resources to these relationships, a conduct research that will take a long period key benefit of which is the training of of time to realize benefits, industry is, by Janet Walden began the session by providing students. Each year, approximately 7,000 necessity, interested in conducting narrow an overview of NSERC’s programs to build students are trained by working each year in research with promises of immediate benefits. academic-industry interactions, suggesting industry through NSERC’s partnership The result, however, is a gap in the kinds of that the strength in Canadian R&D is within programmes. NSERC has traditionally research that gets conducted in the three-to- our higher education sector. Despite built-up worked on building a world-class research ten year period. advantage in the Canadian higher education base, but is now emphasizing building bridges sector, however, many of the reports released and applying that research capacity. NSERC Whitehead suggested that PhD dissertations over the past few years suggest that we are has developed four themes through on innovative, applied research might fill this not making use of this advantage. One of the consultation with small and large businesses: gap. To do this, dissertations would need to ways, Walden argued, that we might address building sustainable relationships between be high-quality, highly innovative, and deal the innovation challenges in Canada is to industry and universities; helping industry with a significant problem. These kinds of connect the higher education sector’s strength access research; eliminating barriers that keep dissertations, if conducted in greater numbers, in research with the needs of our industrial industry from accessing students and could even act as a catalyst within university sectors. Canada, she said, should encourage researchers at the public research institutions; departments, potentially building up general more public-private collaborations, noting and increasing industry’s impact on research respect for this kind of research. that NSERC is already developing and areas that will be critically important to implementing a strategy to this effect. Canada in the future. There appear to be barriers, however, that get in the way of increasing the number of PhD NSERC’s strategy is focussed on connecting Lorne Whitehead next proposed a new dissertations that might fill this gap. There and applying Canada’s research strength to approach to improving university-industry are, for example, concerns that applied research could come to dominate the research connections and skills sets needed to help current exports, and that is up by one-third agendas of most universities. But, Whitehead them get a new idea from an early product over the last decade. He also pointed out that argued, the increase in applied research on development stage to the market. The Canadian business has a long-standing university campuses has not taken away from program is based around a practicum where productivity gap with other nations that basic research; if anything, it has added more the students form a multi-disciplinary team results from, generally, the failure to adopt resources to the university. Applied research and take forward an idea by developing a innovation-oriented business strategies. is often perceived as being trivial; but, he business model, pitching the project, getting argued, applied research often contributes to funding, and trying to commercialize the idea. Gabriel pointed out that Canada has one of basic science by identifying additional the most educated workforces in the G7, problems that need to be solved. Whitehead The program has put through about 250 world-class educational and research also suggested that universities can de-select students, and 74% of them have been institutions, strong industrial clusters, a the most entrepreneurial people, and that involved in one (or more) start-up(s) since competitive business climate, and there ought to be more value placed on graduation. Doherty said, “The practicums comparatively good access to capital. Yet, he entrepreneurial outputs from applied research, have not done very well, but there have been also noted, we have weaknesses: we tend to such as patents and prototype development. multi-start-ups in all areas that have moved lack policy focus, we spread money thinly forward,” showing the success of the program across many different programs, and we fail The Centre of Business Entrepreneurship and at creating a certain kind of risk-taking to use policy levers such as strategic Technology (CBET) is a science program entrepreneurial talent. Doherty attributed the procurement. located within the Faculty of Arts at the program’s success to Waterloo’s vibrant, Stratford Campus of the University of connected, and entrepreneurial culture, with To address these failures, Gabriel suggested Waterloo, which has gone from being an lots of people who want to help new ventures. that universities focus on a new model of engineering-oriented university to an This gives student the opportunity to work engagement that puts the community at the opportunity-oriented one. Despite lacking a with a multi-disciplinary team, and get the center of everything that they do, integrating business faculty, Paul Doherty noted that vital experience of taking an idea forward. research functions with regional business and Waterloo has become particularly interested social communities, in alignment with the in the development of sustainable businesses Kamiel Gabriel discussed some of the broad community’s strategic growth opportunities. capable of surviving all the stages between challenges facing innovation in Canada and This means focusing on a more systematic early product development and large market the uptake of innovation. He explained some approach to innovation policy rather than just penetration. The CBET is working to help of the reasons why Canada continues to rank funding specific innovation programs. address what is needed in universities and 14th or 15th in most of the OECD’s Graduate students, he suggested, are the key industry to help companies grow, innovation-related indicators, despite major feature of this approach as the “conveyor acknowledging that entrepreneurs tend not to policy initiatives to improve our standing. belt” that takes ideas out into the marketplace. be that strong academically, and that engineering students often lack the necessary One of the long-standing problems facing Questions addressed scientists’ concerns that networking skills and general business skills. Canada is our historical reliance on natural applied research careers were fruitless, and CBET developed an applied masters program resource exports to drive our economy. issues of which intellectual property regime that gives entrepreneurial students the Natural resources represent two-thirds of best promotes innovation and collaboration. Encouraging Investment in Science and Technology

Moderator Jeremy Grushcow - Partner, Ogilvy Renault LLP

Panellists Chummer Farina - Vice-President, Canadian Space Agency Jean-Francois Groux - Director, Risk Capital, Venture Capital Group, Business Development Bank of Canada Jean-Louis Legaul - President, l'Association des Directeurs de Recherche Industrielle du Québec (ADRIQ) Susan Gorges - CEO, SpringBoard West Innovations Inc. Trina Foster - Vice-President, Business Development, Science-Metrix

Gorges suggested that! although robust people. But Canada’s space industry is more funding for basic research in Canada important than its direct economic benefits: generates many new ideas, bringing these space research attracts scientific and ideas to the market can be challenging. engineering talent, brings international Venture capitalists tend to invest in relatively recognition to Canada as a space-faring mature projects with a proven market, nation, and stimulates R&D investments by management team, business plan, and exit industry that spill over into other areas. Susan Gorges began by describing her group strategy. However, “angel investors” are SpringBoard West Innovations, an association needed to bridge the “Valley of Death” Space allows us to do things that you cannot of serial entrepreneurs and market research between early-stage investment from do any other way. For example, the Earth analysts that work to surround intellectual entrepreneurs’ friends and family, and late- observation satellites often provide key property with viable businesses; that is to say, stage investment from venture capitalists – information: it was a Canadian satellite that they work on technology commercialization. and such angel investors are in short supply. provided data during the Haiti disaster to They help clients produce a fundable business Gorges argued that Canada should develop a identify where malaria would break out, case by working to identify a target market, technology acceleration fund to help allowing disaster relief teams to prevent that creating the channel to that market, and then entrepreneurs obtain the financing they need from happening; the CSA has also developed doing the financials, including developing the during this crucial period. technology that allows them to detect spills operations and recruiting a management team. from ships from space; and advancements in This is a useful service, Gorges argued, Chummer Farina began by noting that the agricultural management allow more because inventors often do not provide a clear Canadian Space Agency coordinates its informative soil data to help examine the case for the fundability of their idea, and are operations with over 200 companies, impact of moisture levels, deforestation, as therefore generally discounted by financiers. universities, and research centres. Most of the well as information to support the application The SpringBoard program, Gorges explained, design and manufacturing work is done by the of fertilizer to maximize yield. Satellites has three elements: technology maturation, private sector, generating approximately $2.8 provide communication technologies that commercial maturation, and competitive billion a year, half of which comes from allow Canadians to communicate across the intelligence. exports, and employs approximately 7,000 vast geographical expanse of Canada, particularly in the far North, and global normally taken by the market, and fill some how “the public investments and strategy at positioning systems have become very of the gaps in the financial community in the federal level in terms of investments in important for global commerce. Thus, for a Canada. Groux pointed out that the point of R&D impact how the linkages play out and variety of reasons, investing in space venture capital is to build a successful what the outcomes are at the end.” In general, infrastructure should be fruitful for Canada. company, not necessarily commercialize an she reports, the federal commitment to R&D idea. This requires the financier to be close to is increasing. Investments are being made Jean-Louis Legaul primarily discussed the the company and work closely with towards expanding the labour pool, nature and mandate of his organization. management and co-investors, which is why developing clusters, and bolstering public- ADRIQ was formed in 1978, made up of foreign investors rarely enter in at the early private collaborations – but are these research directors of large corporations along stages of corporate development. Venture strategies having an impact? with university administrators who did not capitalists need to assess the likely return on believe they had a voice influencing investment, the capability of the management Foster gave Genome Canada as a case-study government policy on science and innovation. team, the quality of the technology, the of measuring funding impacts by examining Between 1978 and 1991 they acted primarily competitiveness of the company, and whether whether or not Genome Canada’s goal of to lobby the government, but discovered they the product fits into a clear market with the identifying leading researchers and funding could also provide other valuable research- potential for sales growth over time. On the best research in genomics had been met. and innovation-related activities. ADRIQ is average, a company takes 4-7 years to build Science-Metrix identified that through now the main Quebec innovation network, an early-stage technology company and bring Genome Canada’s funding, the impact of with 60% of the 4200 memberships of the it to market successfully. papers produced went up, but the researcher organization now made up of enterprises. impact did not. So, while these initiatives are Mr. Groux agreed with The Impact Group’s not changing what researchers are actually ADRIQ, as a networking organization, 2009 report suggesting that early-stage and investigating, they are identifying strong connects supplier and customers vertically start-up R&D performing companies typically researchers, with a good paper impact, within value chains, and organizations fail because they do little work to identify and helping them do good research that makes horizontally within clusters. It also links engage with potential customers during the them more active on the international stage, clusters between sectors and regions. The product-development phase. Most early-stage and more involved in collaborations. What main impact of ADRIQ is near Montreal and entrepreneurs do not understand how their the Genome Canada case-study demonstrates Quebec City, but the organization is active technology can be translated into other is that providing funding on a large scale with across the province. verticals so as to expand market share and a long-term, continuous commitment has an move into new markets over time. impact when compared with other initiatives Jean-Francois Groux discussed the role of the that have been funding smaller, focused Business Development Bank of Canada Trina Foster discussed how Science-Metrix projects with short-term commitment. It also (BDC) in helping to create and support performs research evaluation: primarily demonstrates, however, that stars shine, Canadian business through financing, venture through bibliometric analysis, intellectual regardless of the amount of money is capital, and consulting services, with a focus property measures, licensing, and qualitative provided to them. on small and medium-sized enterprises. The measures to examine the impacts of research. BDC’s role is to take more risk that is The company, Foster explained, investigates

Global Perspectives in Science and Technology

Advancing Science and Fostering Innovation through International Cooperation

Globalization has generated new patterns of networking and changed the way knowledge is generated. International collaboration between scientists, policy makers, governments, businesses, and non-governmental organizations is increasingly important for scientific research and innovation in the 21st century. This panel discusses issues related to international S&T collaboration, innovation, and sustainable development.

The Global Research Infrastructures, Research Collaboratories, Network-Enabled Science

Research infrastructure plays an invaluable role in connecting scientific communities across the globe, and is instrumental in data-driven research, “big science” projects, and global R&D collaborations. A strong research infrastructure enables researchers to connect and collaborate as advances in information technology provide scientists with new capabilities of data storage, acquisition, and sharing. This panel discusses issues related to the global dimension of research infrastructures, drawing on representative examples from Canada, US, and Europe.

Canada’s Role in Science Diplomacy: Applying Science to International Challenges

As an emerging field, science diplomacy has increasingly attracted politicians, foreign relations experts, and scientists. The U.S.’s American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the U.K. Royal Society’s Science Policy Centre have established special programs on science diplomacy, and President Obama has accorded science a special place in his foreign policy. Canada – with its international legacy as a peacekeeper and its multicultural society – has much to offer in this field. This panel discusses Canada’s opportunities for leadership in science diplomacy.

Plenary: Advancing Science and Fostering Innovation through International Cooperation.

Introductory Remarks Chad Gaffield - President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)

Chair John McDougall - President, National Research Council of Canada (NRC)

Panellists Joseph Hubert - Vice-President, Research and International Relations, l’Université de Montréal Howard Bergman - Vice-President and Scientific Director, Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec (FRSQ) Peter Singer - CEO, Grand Challenges Canada Ilse Treurnicht - CEO, MaRS Discovery District

policy. For the NRC as well as for science from l’Université de Montréal and and technology, international collaboration is l’Université de Laval are two examples of essential for creating and enhancing value and such international “collaboratories”: the building win-win opportunities between Centre Interuniversitaire de recherche sur les Canada and the world. We need access to the réseaux d’entreprise, la logistique et le global knowledge pool, and to advance transport (CIRRELT), and the Centre of science and foster innovation we need to Excellence for Early Childhood Development share understanding of how networks work. (CEECD). CIRRELT involves research The panel and its chair John McDougall, centres in Finland, Montreal, and Norway. president of the National Research Council Joseph Hubert described several different The results of this collaboration, in addition to (NRC) were introduced by Chad Gaffield, models of collaboration. “Classical” models standard academic output, have been the who emphasized the role of the NRC in involve collaboration between individuals, application of innovative industrial research building our current “made in Canada” voice and the exchange and co-supervision of in freight transportation planning for Norway. on research. Gaffield presented plenary chair students, while “classical extended” models John McDougall’s work ensuring the NRC involve collaboration between labs, centers, CEECD, on the other hand, is an example fulfills its role of fostering innovation. and institutes. The further extension of this from the social sciences. CEECD was created model includes international laboratories (for in 2001, conceived under the premise that McDougall began by describing CSPC 2010 example, INSERM and CNRS) that involve children experience accelerated growth during as an exciting conference with an important much larger collaboration, bringing together their first five years, and that the education, topic, building on the previous year, and different areas of knowledge with an care, and attention they receive during this attracting many interesting people from exchange of scientists between the period has a decisive effect on their future. government, academia, industry, and science laboratories. Transportation studies coming The centre’s aim is to improve and disseminate knowledge about children’s health research sector, to develop existing themes and to develop new ones, as social and emotional development, so it is partnerships, and to reap the benefits of health well as develop partnerships with India and crucial that they get this information to research for citizens. Its core programs the United States. Connecting to the European policymakers and parents. The original support 19 research centers in Quebec Research Area Network (ERA-NET) will national consortium produced an online university hospitals, as well as grants for both integrate scientists and facilitate encyclopedia of early childhood development, students at many levels and career research Canadian and provincial funding whose results were used for Canadian policy. awards. The FRSQ also has strategic organizations’ fostering of multi-level This project was eventually expanded, structured research groups and 18 themed collaboration via large research networks. offering customized results in Spanish networks (including aging, cardiovascular specifically for Chilean society, and in health, cancer, pain, and suicide). These Bergman concluded that research in Quebec Portuguese for Brazilian society. A networks have a bottom-up structure uniting and Canada has to be seen in its developing partnership was eventually created with a the “best of Quebec” in particular domains. international context. Research themes are too Dutch private international foundation to complex for one lab, one province, or one focus CEECD’s work on childhood Bergman argued that research can no longer country. We must compete with and be development in underdeveloped countries, be done in isolation; it must be compared with the best internationally, and and an international network was launched for multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary, and part federal and provincial funding agencies need a new consortium with the aim of enhancing of university, national, and international to develop strategic priorities for network expansion for increased global networks. The FRSQ was the first provincial collaboration. This strategy must draw from impact on the way people do research. research foundation to have an impact at the our own research community of experts; we national and international level - building have the responsibility to orient, facilitate and CEECD’s innovation is to transfer knowledge innovative thematic networks and programs, fund scientists’ international collaboration, of best practices that are adapted to the helping Quebec scientists integrate into such being careful that their funding applications countries in which it will be applied, as well networks, and targeting themes aligned with do not make their lives too difficult. We must as to train early-career researchers in an government priorities. For example, the be aware of and respect their needs, and international environment. International FRSQ has bilateral targeted partnerships with support their collaborative partnerships. collaboration has increased the quality and France (Alzheimer’s, personalized health local relevance of the encyclopedia, which is care) China (progressing from a biannual Peter Singer started by calling the CSPC a now used by over a quarter of a million colloquium on genetic medicine to a great, bottom-up, grassroots effort from people. collaborative model targeting reasonable young people, acknowledging the organizers priorities) and Israel (drug discovery and as doing something very worthwhile, and Howard Bergman’s talk described the work of development, as well as partnerships with encouraged sponsorship and support from the FRSQ and the integration of Quebec industry). Through these partnerships, the organizations for next year’s conference. For researchers internationally. The FRSQ is not FRSQ was challenged by needing distinct Singer, talking about international just where scientists go for funding, he said, ways of functioning within foreign countries, cooperation is a very patriotic thing, for it’s as it has concrete responsibilities to plan, even in France where the language was the really about how we see Canada’s role in the coordinate, support, and animate Quebec’s same. The FRSQ’s plan is to build on its world. How well have we elaborated our role? We have so much innovation that “Canada as Following Canada’s lead, USAID launched a grand challenges as addressing specific Innovator” could be our brand. But do we service delivery grand challenge in maternal critical barriers that, if removed, would help really have a strategy? Singer suggested that and neonatal health in September 2010. This solve important health problem in the we do not. In global health, Canada has never is a prime example of an innovative role for developing world. Canada’s core concept of taken a strategic look at our role in Canada being followed by others. Yet the grand challenges is one of integrated innovation. While we are currently launching challenges to global health remain immense, innovation between science and technology an assessment of our role in global health, we including vast international imbalances in innovation, social innovation, and business ought to also consider how we want others to child and maternal mortality. Singer argued innovation. The advantages of the grand see us. Our comparative advantage is not that this is neither fair nor right; thus, we need challenges approach are that it provides focus; necessarily power, but innovation, and to do things differently and better, and this is brings the best minds to the table; creates grassroots meetings such as the CSPC are both the definition and the role for innovation. collaborative, global, and interdisciplinary important for contemplating our international In the 2008 budget, the Development and communities; recruits new talent; captures image and strategy. Innovation fund was meant to support the public imagination; and provides a platform world’s best minds, to bring about enduring for global governance. One nimble, quick, and flexible way to do changes for the lives of millions of people in Singer concluded by situating the grand international cooperation is the “grand poor countries; language like this is, challenges approach as an opportunity for challenges” approach. Grand challenges have unfortunately, not found in the foreign aid G8/G20 countries to pursue global health a history in mathematics, beginning with envelope of any other federal budget. innovation and to rally around common goals, David Hilbert’s challenge to solve his list of in a platform for cooperation and global unsolved problems in mathematics at the governance. beginning of the 20th century. Many people are still actively working to solve some of the Ilse Treurnicht first asked what fostering unsolved problems Hilbert had listed; others innovation through international cooperation have been solved in the 100 years since he means for technology and social businesses in posed them. The pressing problems of global Canada, and how this will influence policy. health demand a shorter timeline, however, She argued that globalization of innovation is and in 2003, Bill Gates launched the Grand both an enormous threat and an enormous Challenges in Global Health, resuscitating opportunity for emerging technology and this approach. The critical aspect of a grand social businesses in Canada, which inhabit a challenge is its critical barrier that remains to complicated landscape. The pace of be overcome (for example, discovery science, Grand Challenges Canada’s mission is to innovation is accelerating, and many downstream delivery, or social issues). identify global grand challenges in health, emerging companies have concurrently had to fund a global research community, and put the brakes on their development due to a Grand Challenges Canada launched in May, support the implementation of emerging lack of funding or early adopter struggles. 2010; the first time that a country has funded solutions. It is the first non-governmental Additionally, R&D drivers are shifting, and a grand challenge in its foreign aid envelope. organization to take this approach, seeing the flow of information around the world has changed the way young companies work, as so our students are equipped to work both needs us to focus on the challenge of growing the barriers to entry have been lowered nationally and internationally. Expansion of “sticky” companies with deep roots. significantly. We must correspondingly business development is also needed, but rethink how we invest in, build, and capture there are problems in achieving this end: we The session ended with a question period value. The increasingly skilled talent pool in currently do business too far removed from focussing on Canada’s competitiveness, our emerging economies has changed the way our customers, and our funding programs grandiosity problem (meaning that we need to young companies think about talent. If enable hiring another R&D person while not execute on very specific focused challenges, entrepreneurial talent is the driver of global necessarily enabling the hire of a business rather than speaking overly abstractly about innovation, then the emerging economies are development person. We need to build a risk vague goals and agendas), our potential for now a force to be reckoned with. The capital system, and we need local partners to development of innovative collaboration, and availability of risk capital is moving towards co-invest with other investors. Finally, we how we can accelerate our achieved export of China, India, Brazil; venture capital used to must diligently watch for complacency, excellence. Chair John McDougall finished be local, but now we can invest far from despite Canada having emerged from the the session by remarking that, through these home. As a result, our young companies can recession in a relatively strong position. Our kinds of discussions, we all come to better and must look elsewhere for early adopters; innovation challenges and opportunities have understand how innovative collaboration however, since our border to the south has only been studied pre-crash, requiring a works and how Canada can be a part of it. thickened, we are forced to look beyond the deeper level of analysis of the subsectors United States. We also must understand that a where we may have a competitive advantage. strong, outstanding scientific research base is We need to think about emerging economies needed for table stakes at the global and converging technologies, and seek and innovation game. develop strategic foresight about where the world is going and how we can benefit. Treurnicht’s observations lead to the policy recommendation that Canada has to match To conclude, Treurnicht described how our areas of excellence with what the world Canada is at a fork in the road: we must ask needs. We need to think about how we extend whether we are going to be a provider or a our national and international networks; if we buyer of solutions. There are good reasons to can build a true collaboration model across build a global company from Canada in this country to allow us to contribute to both Canada today, so we can approach this national and international innovation systems, challenge with some confidence, but we must that collaboration will enable our collective move from blunt and superficial policy success. We also need, she argued, to not only analysis toward deeper analysis identifying look at how our programs attract the best subsets of businesses, their needs, and their minds in the world to come to Canada, but potential as drivers of job growth in the also to augment our training of students future. The next generation of Canadians through cross-cultural training and internships The Global Research Infrastructures, Research Collaboratories, Network- Enabled Science

Moderator Paul Dufour - Principal, Paulicy Works

Panellists Jim Roche - President and CEO, CANARIE Inc Susan Baldwin - Executive Director, Compute/Calcul Canada Martin Taylor - President and CEO, Ocean Networks Canada

connects new institutions as nodes, and funds infrastructure is that there is not a single projects that enable greater access to the group responsible for developing that CANARIE network. infrastructure. The CANARIE network itself provides a test-bed for new internet-related CANARIE provides the robust internet hardware and software technologies, reducing communications network needed by the development costs for domestic internet researchers. This network allows researchers communications technology firms. So not to collaborate over distances and run only does the network itself allow for the experiments remotely; and with the increasing training of new employees on the leading use of physical data collected by remote edge of internet technology development, but sensors, networks such as CANARIE allow it can also act as an accelerator or catalyst for Jim Roche first provided a brief overview of for the transmission of this sensor data to innovation in Canada. CANARIE and explained the importance of multiple-research sites. CANARIE also works the network, both as an internet on developing “middleware” (integrated Whereas CANARIE provides the physical communications infrastructure and as an technologies that are both hardware and infrastructure to move data around the internet technology research testbed. software). For example, CANARIE works to country, Susan Baldwin discussed the develop technology capable of providing organization charged with creating Canada’s CANARIE is an “advanced digital cloud computing services, as well as supercomputing capacity: Compute/Calcul infrastructure,” providing a high-capacity, technologies capable of providing long-term Canada. Its mission is to create a national high-bandwidth internet backbone connecting storage of data from scientific experiments, platform of high-performance computing research institutions around Canada. openly available to the scientific community (HPC) and data-sharing services and to CANARIE also supports specific sorts of for future use. develop the personnel to use and maintain research, particularly on infrastructure-related those computing systems. The organization applications that are not in the mandate of the Roche also discussed the benefits of provides not only the physical computing Tri-Council organizations. Additionally, CANARIE for innovation in Canada. One of capacity, but also the service personnel to CANARIE funds equipment upgrades, the weaknesses of the Canadian digital help researchers apply the correct

! ! methodology to analyze their data, making as essential infrastructural capacity to our large projects. ONC is also connected with that analysis much more effective and academic and industrial researchers. the U.S. Ocean Observing Initiative, which is efficient. developing its own Pacific West Coast Martin Taylor began by using his own observation array, and the European Ocean Compute/Calcul Canada, Baldwin says, is organization, Ocean Networks Canada Observatory, but Canada is on the leading working toward establishing HPC-related (ONC), as an example of an international edge of wiring the oceans, preparing both for internships in businesses and small and collaboration that makes use of the kinds of further expansion of under-sea internet medium enterprises (SMEs) to help connect infrastructure provided by CANARIE and cabling and new power generation efforts those businesses with HPC resources and help Compute/Calcul Canada. “We are an example such as off-shore energy generation. generate a receptor community, thereby of the kind of network that has been enabled connecting computing graduates with SMEs [by this infrastructure]” he said, as the role of During the question and answer period, who can use their talents. They also run a ONC is to support and develop NEPTUNE Michelle Burns from the Department of series of workshops across Canada to help Canada and VENUS as world-leading International Development in the U.K. asked researchers understand how to connect to underwater ocean observatory networks. The how the organizations represented by the HPC resources and how they can best utilize instrumentation and physical infrastructure panel are dealing with the challenge of that computing capacity. Compute/Calcul was designed for the project through an constantly being asked to document the Canada is involved in many major national international consortium, and represents a impact of their projects. Taylor responded and international scientific collaborations, complex array of new technologies and that the Canadian Foundation for Innovation including CERN and a project run by NSERC applications. These projects strive to develop has set out criteria subject to international that works with other G-8 nations to examine transformative ocean research, provide data peer review used for ongoing measurements and develop potential for exascale computing. that can inform public policy, inspire public of assessment, so the process is relatively engagement in our ocean environments, and streamlined. Another question asked how the Baldwin explained that a lack of sustained stimulate commercial development. The infrastructure built by these organizations funding has been one of the main challenges network consists of a series of nodes might sustain the withdrawal of financing by facing Compute/Calcul Canada, making it connecting seismic, chemical, visual, and the governmental funding bodies. Taylor said difficult for the organization to enter fluid flow instruments. The cable backbone that it depends on whether you’re considering international agreements and develop long- that relays the signals back to a shore station the people or the physical infrastructure. One term plans. HPC infrastructure in Canada has connects to the University of Victoria, on the consequence of short-run operating funding is been treated as a short-term project, rather mainland, via the CANARIE network. that if senior employees who are in high than as a fundamental, shared infrastructure demand begin to fear for the sustainability of needed by researchers, both industrial and ONC also connects with the numerous federal their jobs, they often move on to other academic, moving forward. Baldwin argues agencies responsible for managing oceans, opportunities, leaving key voids in the that Canada needs to continue to invest in and is working with those agencies to find organization. The physical infrastructure lasts HPC as major research projects will new kinds of relationships and modes of longer. Susan Baldwin then pointed out that increasingly demand HPC capability, and that communication that help break down some of Compute/Calcul Canada’s funding also pays continuing to invest in this area will provide the inherent barriers that exist when large, for ongoing operations. diverse organizations attempt to coordinate

! Canada's Role in Science Diplomacy: Applying Science to International Challenges

Moderator! Valérie La Traverse - Deputy Director, S&T Relations, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada!

Panellists! Naser Faruqui - Director, Innovation, Policy, and Science, International Development Research Centre (IDRC)! Daryl Copeland - Author, Professor, and former Diplomat, University of Toronto! Nina Fedoroff - Willaman Professor of the Life Sciences, Evan Pugh Professor, Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, Penn State University

center, meaning that science policy, when a as nice and non-threatening. Canada has the component, is also front and centre. soft power elements, the capacity, and the representational capacity in the Foreign Traditional diplomacy differs from public Service necessary to make a contribution to diplomacy, Copeland claimed, for traditional science and technology development and diplomacy is when government bodies speak security. In order to achieve this, the Foreign to each other, whereas public diplomacy Ministry must be re-imagined so it will be directly connects the government with the able to handle science and technology issues. public. In order to demonstrate Canada’s role in this kind of diplomacy, thinking in terms of Since the real threats to world order reside in hard vs. soft power proves useful, where hard a global suite of challenges driven by Daryl Copeland started his talk by saying power is the ability to bring about one’s technology and rooted in science, science there is something unique about the way wishes through coercion, and soft power is diplomacy needs to be used to solve them. science diplomacy works, for there is a getting what you want through attraction, What is necessary, Copeland said, is the disconnect between how science works on influence, or persuasion. Soft power, in short, ability to generate and absorb science one hand, and how diplomacy works on the is about getting what you want because knowledge in diplomacy to help avoid other. He argues in his book Guerrilla people like you, rather than through threats underdevelopment and insecurity. He went Diplomacy that if development has become and strong-arming people. on, saying that science policy should the new security, then diplomacy must obviously occupy a central role in this. Yet replace defence at the center of international Canada does not have many hard power science and technology remain unfortunately policy. Copeland defines “diplomacy” as an options, so soft power and public diplomacy alien to many governments and institutions, approach to international relations are really our only option, Copeland claimed. for science is often seen as complex and characterized by dialogue, engagement, and Canada enjoys a significant advantage in impenetrable. Few diplomats are scientists, communication to implement world order terms of soft power, Copeland argued, as we most diplomatic agencies are woefully under- without war. In this formulation, public do not carry significant colonial baggage, and trained and under-prepared to handle diplomacy in particular is placed front and we have an overall positive global reputation scientific issues, and most governments are spending far more on defence and security The IDRC also goes beyond simply funding the global vision of science diplomacy was than on science, technology, and R&D. research. IDRC staff scientists, for example, already being borne out. Science has been engage and mentor scientists in the field. used historically to gain a competitive To meet these challenges, the department of They also have a responsibility to broker advantage in the military sphere, economic foreign affairs will need to create a science knowledge, i.e. to make sure that researchers sphere, and most recently in space, but U.S. advisor, and we also need to create a new and policy makers have access to the science diplomacy is moving away from its bureau dealing with science and technology necessary information. Additionally, the focus on weapons towards supporting issues, located between the trade side of the IDRC supports programs like the Young scientific collaboration. house and the political side of the house. Einstein program, which takes the highest- Professor Copeland summarized and achieving university students from across Focussing on her own experiences with concluded his talk by saying that Canada Africa and places them in a one-year collaborative programs as part of the U.S. could address these global challenges through intensive mathematics course in the hopes of State Department, Fedoroff stated that the the soft power of science diplomacy. Given unlocking scientific talent in Africa. This basic mission of the U.S. Science Advisor is our resources and political will, these support should help to alleviate local to increase literacy about science and investments could pay handsome returns. problems by supplying locals with technology in the State Department. In mathematical tools needed to solve them. particular, when acting in this role, Fedoroff Although he does not describe himself as a Such investments are the right thing to do, worked to provide a science background to diplomat, Naser Faruqui has spent a Faruqui stated, but it is also an investment in those entering the Foreign Service. The significant amount of time on the ground in Canada’s future prosperity as it assists program connected diplomats with scientists developing countries working on scientific- Canada’s strategic interests. Development aid and alerted them to the problems that occupy based outreach. His talk focused on the role allows Canada to create highly skilled the intersection of science and policy. Her the IDRC has played in scientific diplomacy partners with whom we can communicate and office also organized workshops and hosted in developing countries, where it cooperates innovate. Furthermore, Faruqui claimed, scientific briefings, such as an international with developing countries to solve practical Canada can also learn from less developed conference that brought university presidents problems with science and technology. Many countries, e.g. from Jordan’s innovative together to talk about the university’s role in problems in today’s world flow freely greywater technologies. In conclusion, science policy and diplomacy. between borders, and we all have a stake in Faruqui reiterated three reasons to collaborate solving them, claimed Faruqui, meaning with developing countries: to tackle shared Fedoroff closed by mentioning President solutions can come from anywhere. Hence, challenges, aid development, and to build Obama’s recent speech in Cairo, Egypt, the IDRC promotes global collaborations to trust and openness. All three of these enhance which promoted collaborative communication facilitate cutting-edge research. IDRC also global stability while helping Canada achieve with Islamic countries regarding science and aims to build local capacities to meet its own interests, so “science collaboration technology. The program that was referenced challenges in the developing world, e.g. with developing countries is cost-effective in that speech, the Science Envoy program, regarding the impregnation of bed nets with with high returns.” has recently been gaining a lot of traction, as insecticides. A pilot program for these bed the first two envoys have been well received nets appears to have lead to significant Nina Fedoroff started her talk by saying that and a third will soon depart. decreases in diseases like malaria. she was excited to take part in a panel where

Creating and Retaining Scientific Talent in Canada

Science Policy in a Diverse Society: Canadian Challenges, Canadian Solutions

Canada is becoming one of the most diverse countries in the world, and our science policy must reflect this diversity. It is no longer sufficient, if it ever was, to view science policy from solely a federal government perspective. Our science policy must build bridges not just across all levels of government and all sectors of the economy, but also with all parts of our multilingual, multicultural society. This panel explores the challenges and opportunities related to building a strong science culture in our diverse society.

The Making of a Science Entrepreneur

The Federal Science and Technology Strategy speaks of fostering in Canada "a culture that values and rewards ingenuity and entrepreneurship." This workshop provides an interactive opportunity to examine the concept of Science Entrepreneurship. Participants explore the potential of scientists as entrepreneurs and the role of entrepreneurship in science. What are we trying to achieve by promoting this concept? Should science entrepreneurship be built into our educational pipeline, and if so, how? How can we best foster science entrepreneurship at the provincial and federal levels?

Career Development Workshop

This is an interactive workshop for those interested in careers in science policy, but not sure where to turn. The workshop explores career possibilities and job-seeking strategies in science policy, giving participants the opportunity to hear from and interact with a variety of science policy professionals at various stages of their careers, who all have walked quite different paths to get to where they are. Whether your background is in the sciences, engineering, public policy, or anything else, if you have an interest in working in science policy this workshop is an excellent opportunity to expand your professional network. The workshop is also your opportunity to suggest how the Canadian Science Policy Centre can best support your career development needs and aspirations in science policy.

! Science policy in a diverse society: Canadian challenges, Canadian solutions ! Moderator! Ursula Gobel - Director of Communications, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC)!

Panellists! Yves Gingras - Canada Research Chair in History and Sociology of Science, département d'histoire, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM)! Denise Amyot!"!President and CEO, Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation! Raymond Lauzier!"!Chair, Science Advisory Committee, Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC)

! perks. Scientists do not change jobs or understand the social systems of science, it ! institutions because of a higher salary; rather, becomes clear how the best in science will not they do so because they could not carry out be attracted by the best money. The their research where they were. However, unintended consequence here is that you many current policies for science were made change the notion of “the best” from the most under the false assumption that scientists are novel or inventive to the highest paid. You primarily motivated by money. As a result, also end up with an uneven structure in the Yves Gingras started the session with a these policies have had unintended negative system: a $50,000/yr PhD student may make spirited talk focussed on the maximization of consequences that often go unacknowledged. more than a faculty member in the same lab. results from federal funds marked for Similar criticisms were made of the Banting educational advancement. He first gave two Gingras gave three examples of funding Postdoctoral Awards. In this case, Gingras conditions for good policy-making for policies for science that had negative, yet claims, the decision to create this award was science: understand the social system of generally unacknowledged, unintended not made on basis of real evidence about the science, and make decisions based on consequences: the Vanier Canada Graduate needs and motivations of committed and evidence, including a serious analysis of Scholarships, the Banting Postdoctoral impassioned scientists; rather, it was created unintended consequences. For despite our Fellowships, and the Canada Excellence for politicians to gain visibility, meaning that good intentions, using policy to intervene in Research Chairs (CERCs). In each of these “politics was brought to the sciences in the complex social systems can sometimes have examples there is a trend: policy decisions worst way.” Gingras argued that CERCs, as negative effects we did not intend. were heavily informed by lobbying and other large sums of money given to well- organizations, and lacked Tri-Council input. established, outstanding scholars, offer Scientists, Gingras noted, are primarily diminishing returns, for in selecting the most motivated by symbolic recognition, rather The idea behind the Vanier awards was to excellent scholars the policy picks out those than high salaries; if one wanted to be rich, motivate Canada’s best and brightest to stay that have already made their major one would not dream of being a scientist. in Canada to conduct their research by giving contributions, dumps money on them, and Scientists want good laboratories, resources to top students awards of $50,000/yr, which simply asks them to be more excellent, carry out their projects, and other job-related dwarf other student awards; yet when we despite already being quite excellent. Implicit in all these policies for science, average, Canada lags behind while funding in future will be good; but, Amyot claimed, the Gringras points out, is a transformation from Canada remains well below the G7 average as future doesn’t look that good, as we face a symbolic incentives to economic incentives. the gap increases. Furthermore, Canada’s generational challenge. Who will innovate if These policies try to get scientists to act and S&T policy has moved government funding all our scientists simply leave the country due value themselves in terms of dollars rather away from research and design, leading many to brain drain? This is a problem for the than in usual standards of scientific success. scientists to begin claiming that infrastructure public, too, as we all need scientists in order Yet economic gaps between scientists is eroding. Infrastructure erosion is an to make evidence-based decisions. The produce social gaps, which is not conducive important political issue, internationally government needs to pursue the creation of to the success of modern science, which speaking, because it impacts Canada’s ability knowledge, and determine how to apply that always takes place in collaborating groups. to meet international collaborative research knowledge, and for that they need scientists. The most efficient way of spending money, obligations. Yet the actual workings of science are Gingras argued, would be to give small gifts underappreciated: most people don’t know or where it can make the difference between In Canada, Lauzier noted, scientific capacity care until they have difficulty applying it. having an adequately funded project and no is linked to public service renewal. Our project at all; as it stands, Canadians are not scientifically trained civil servants are aging Amyot proposes that we emphasize creativity maximizing the impact of their investments quickly, yet in the 2010 budget, the in science at an early age, permeating because policies have been based on visibility government cut the amount given to science- Canada’s educational curriculum with and lobbying, not evidence. based public service. Federal S&T policy, science, from kindergarten and grade school, Lauzier argued, should focus on recruiting not just in university, and that we need new Raymond Lauzier’s talk focused on the new scientists to public service; but even with models of public engagement with science. balance of the three pillars of Canadian an infusion of new blood, they cannot fill all The national museums can help engage the science and technology: institutions of the open positions throughout the hierarchy, public in science in several ways: with learning, business enterprises, and so even mid-career scientists will have to be “virtual hubs” that link various users that help government research and design. The recruited to the top jobs. Lauzier finished by populate the hub with information, serving as importance of striking a balance pertains to a cautioning that few voices speak on behalf of an aggregator of information necessary for variety of goals, such as promoting economic the public, that Canadians need to stand up cross-institutional engagement. Another prosperity, preserving the environment, and and engage their government to create science example is the pan-Canadian energy literacy protecting Canadians. In response to the policy that can help the public, and that public initiative, a six-year program where a network underperformance of the country’s innovation science remains part of a solution to Canada’s of institutions will contribute to the dialog on record in the 1990’s, there was a shift of productivity and innovation problems. energy. It is a physical and virtual space resources to universities and university designed to help citizens know what energy is research. The result, claims Lauzier, was Denise Amyot began by stating that about, showcase new energy technologies, world-class Canadian universities. innovation is a contributor to our well-being, and to engage the public in changing their and that a lack of it is a detriment. She relationships with energy. Amyot concluded Yet concern over research and innovation pointed out that Canada has a long history of by noting that, at the end of the day, if the continues, said Lauzier, and metrics show innovation, from the alkaline battery to the public is not with science, neither science nor that, compared to the U.S. and the OECD zipper, so one would think and hope the the job market will flourish. Workshop: Career Development

Workshop Leaders Jeffrey Kinder - Manager, Science and Technology Strategy, Natural Resources Canada Eric Gagné - Director, Science Policy Division, Environment Canada

Invited Participants Eleanor Fast - Program Director, Council of Canadian Academies Marcius Extavour - AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow, United States Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Jen Hiscock - Science and Technology Advisor, Natural Resources Canada

Jeffrey Kinder opened the session on career equation, from places like university Both the session organizers and the three development by introducing himself and his administration and government. invited participants then gave a summary of co-participants. After Kinder reminded the how they got into science policy, describing group that science policy includes both policy After the icebreaker the participants were their varied but similar backgrounds. All five for science and science for policy, Eric Gagné invited to go to one of four writing easels of them started in science and engineering gave a welcoming in French as a way of situated in the four corners of the room and degrees, and all of them realized while encouraging participation in either official brainstorm, in small groups, a response to the pursuing their education or sometime early in language. Both Kinder and Gagné explained question "What do you need to get into their career that what really excited them that the session was only going to be science policy?" Each group wrote their were the consequences of science and profitable if the group participated, so they responses to the question and then nominated technology, rather than the actual practice of continued this highly successful workshop one person to present their findings to the science or engineering. Every single one of with an icebreaker. room. As the summaries were presented it them used 'passion' to describe how they became obvious that each of the four groups knew they had found the perfect career path Everyone was asked to stand up and locate had interpreted the question differently. Some for themselves. They described how the themselves on an imaginary map of Canada. groups had chosen to focus on the skills combination of luck, networking, being in the The map quickly had to expand since there required for a career in science policy right place (Ottawa) at the right time, and were participants from Boston and (communication and subject knowledge), hard work had got them started in their career Washington D.C. present, along with a nearly others had focussed on job searching (cover path, and they described the varied ways to complete cross-section of Canada. Once letters and resume building) or career paths get into science policy (further education, people were situated, Kinder and Gagné (government, media, or university). This fellowship, internship, volunteer work, invited everyone from East to West to resulted in a rich variety of answers, with one Engineers without Borders, or even a introduce themselves to the room. The answer constant to all four groups: seemingly unrelated government contract). participants were largely doctoral students networking. Everyone in the room agreed that The variety of careers the five participants and post-docs, mainly from Montréal, Ottawa, meeting and connecting with people in represented demonstrated how exciting and and Toronto. There were also several science policy was the best way to get into a challenging the field of science policy can be. participants on the employment side of the career in science policy.

Following these personal histories the full Gagné collected the names and email The session was even more popular than the group was again put to work brainstorming addresses of everyone present. organizers had anticipated. Over 35 people questions regarding what challenges each attended. It was widely agreed that this person thought they might face in getting a Another suggestion to come out of the workshop, or a variation of it, should be held career in science policy. Kinder and Gagné workshop was that science graduate degrees as part of every future Canadian Science split the questions into four categories: could make room for a communication or Policy Conference. It was also the general “networking,” “can I do it?”, “information,” policy requirement within the degree; this was consensus that 2010 conference had provided and “education.” Everyone was asked to go taken as a suggestion that the CSPC could many opportunities for networking, but that to the category that appealed to them most work with universities to have some such the Centre could, given adequate resources, and to brainstorm answers and solutions to requirement added to curricula. It was not take specific actions to connect senior and each of the questions. Once the groups were expected that the CSPC could actually alter junior members of the science policy finished coming up with solutions they were the degree requirements of any university, but community for career coaching, both during asked to go around the room marking the four it was suggested that the CSPC could future conferences and in between annual boards with stars for their preferred strategies gradually build an argument in favour of such conferences. in each category. requirements.

Each of the four categories focused on similar In the last few minutes of the session Kinder solutions, with networking remaining a key explained what a day in his life looks like, so component at all four stations. Given the that attendees would know what sort of work prevalence of networking in both discussions environment they were striving to get in to. the whole group then brainstormed ways that The day previous he had participated in an the Canadian Science Policy Centre (CSPC) interdepartmental Assistant Deputy Minister and Conference in 2011 could improve meeting at 8:30am, which happens every networking opportunities. While it was other Tuesday and includes the twelve generally agreed that the 2010 conference government departments with science provided a great opportunity for networking, mandates. Following this meeting he had to it was also suggested that the CSPC could deal with urgent "fire-fighting": issues that perhaps maintain a job bank, acting to are not anticipated to be part of his daily facilitate one-on-one connections between agenda, but crop up on a regular basis and experienced policy workers and aspiring have to be answered in time to prepare the policy wonks. This might include a type of Minister for question period. In this case, he mentorship where experienced members of had to deal with the recent negative press the science policy community could reach out NRCan received due to the “muzzling” of to the more junior members, answering government scientists. His afternoon was questions they might have about career spent in a workshop devoted to integrating possibilities. In order to kick-start some of the science and policy more effectively. potential networking initiatives, Kinder and

Workshop: The Making of a Science Entrepreneur

Organizer Jeffrey Kinder - Manager, Science and Technology Strategy, Natural Resources Canada

Moderator Shiva Amiri - Science and Innovation Officer, British High Commission

Panellists Bonnie Schmidt - President and Founder, Let's Talk Science Peter Hackett - Executive Professor and Special Advisor, Vice-President of Research, School of Business, University of Alberta

exceptions, this method simply does not work After her description of Let's Talk Science when trying to convert scientists into and her efforts at outreach, Schmidt then entrepreneurs. And not only that, but Canada asked the audience to discuss five questions is currently producing less scientists and in small groups: What are three practices to engineers according to the latest OECD increase youth engagement? What are three reports. She added one complaint about the characteristics of a successful entrepreneur? OECD report: it does not count college What are three ways to teach entrepreneurs? students who are in science, technology, and What are the top three measures of success? engineering streams. Who should be teaching entrepreneurial skills, and where should they be taught? Schmidt's preferred method for imparting science entrepreneurial skills is not to give The group's answers followed the lead Shiva Amiri opened the session by business skills to PhD candidates, but to use provided by Schmidt in her talk. Three introducing the two speakers and their topics. outreach at much younger ages. Let's Talk practices that increase youth engagement Schmidt was to talk about the science half of Science goes to elementary and high schools listed by the audience were: mentorship, making science entrepreneurs and Hackett to give students hands-on experience with science fairs. and learning modules. The was going to cover the entrepreneurial side. science, which she feels is valuable because audience came up with more than three, Before getting started with the talks, Amiri teachers generally do not accommodate the somewhat conflicting characteristics of a queried the audience to get a sense of their kinaesthetic, hands-on learners. These tactile good entrepreneur: stubbornness, a broad backgrounds, revealing that they were learners tend to be the kind of tinkerers who perspective, an open mind, an ability to overwhelmingly from the university sector. could simultaneously be effective scientists communicate, and a willingness to take on and entrepreneurs, but they often do not risk. Five useful teaching practices that the Schmidt spoke about the difficulties of discover a love of science in the current audience came up with were: discussion of teaching science entrepreneurship. She educational system. Schmidt is convinced that case studies, mentorship, cooperative explained that the current method is to outreach is highly effective in increasing the programs, workshops, and competitions. For attempt to layer additional skills onto number and variety of capable students the fourth question the audience suggested scientists. She pointed out that, with a few pursuing science and engineering degrees. five possible measures of success: number of companies, number of repeat or serial Hackett then listed his four barriers to clear up ownership of intellectual property, entrepreneurs, social and economic impact or successful entrepreneurship in Canada. reduce the time-consuming overhead of value of innovations, the diversity of Culturally, Canada has always been a winning and maintaining grants, realign entrepreneurial ideas, and the increased resource-producing country. Government and faculties for the 21st century, and broadcast productivity of the Canadian economy. It was university policies also do not support success stories with a national award of high widely agreed that entrepreneurial skills could industry or venture capitalists, having over- honour. The audience had less to offer for the be successfully taught in different ways, by regulated the potential for spin-offs. barriers within government agencies: they people operating at all levels of education. Intellectual property rights, claimed at suggested only that there should be a more numerous other points during the conference intelligent granting system and that public Hackett's main point was that Canada is a to be a problem area in Canada, were also service should be of the highest quality. For place, currently, with a lot of barriers seen as a problem by Hackett. Last, he noted the final question on measures of innovation, preventing effective entrepreneurship. His that there are often idiosyncratic barriers. the audience added some new possibilities to talk was a whirlwind of examples and those previously discussed, including exports, statistics in support of this claim. He gave a Hackett then asked the groups to discuss four job creation, and the lifespan of companies. definition of entrepreneurship as the act, by a questions: What are three ways to improve company, of commercializing as a product the culture of support? What three actions Hackett and Schmidt then asked for three what was previously only a technology. For could be taken to remove barriers in academic main messages that could be passed along to entrepreneurship to occur, creativity is institutions? What three actions that could be the CSPC from this workshop. The audience absolutely essential and a person must want to taken to remove barriers in government responded that there needs to a way to bridge “win” rather than simply be right. Hackett agencies? And, like Schmidt, what are the the science and entrepreneurship within listed seven other necessary conditions for three best measures of innovation? government, academia, and industry. The entrepreneurial success: having experience, audience also agreed that it was important to customers, sales, mentors, being smart with The audience came up with a variety of point out that there is a lot more at issue here money, having access to capital and talent. interesting answers that went beyond than money. Finally, the audience suggested Hackett's and Schmidt's talks. Three ways to breaking down all the barriers discussed, Hackett then discussed two measures improve the culture of support that the especially those associated with granting and indicative of Canada’s poor performance. audience raised were: to encourage the raw peer review; creativity of all types should be First, Canadian venture capitalists tend to energy of highly skilled immigrants rather rewarded. make a two percent return on their than putting barriers up to prevent investment, ten times less than their American competition with existing Canadians, using In the ensuing discussion, Andrew Munro counterparts. Second, Canada is consistently taxes and tax breaks to incentivize returns noted that there was no discussion of research producing fewer PhD's than other countries; rather than only investments, and to think within industry, and that most of the examples this, at best, will replace the existing globally. Regarding barriers within academia discussed during the workshop were not professors. He also pointed out that the the audience had several suggestions: fix the researchers. He suggested that a better current education system has a tendency to rewards system by including patents as well understanding could be gained by comparing teach the skills required in the past, not the as publications, encourage cross-disciplinary locations with low barriers (Waterloo) and ones that will be needed in the future. problem-solving, award business sabbaticals, high barriers (Guelph).

Major Issues in Canadian Science Policy

Arctic and Northern Science Policy: Canadian Responsibilities

Canada's North is a unique part of our planet's diverse biosphere. At the same time, its expansive geography and remoteness present Canadian industry and researchers operating in the North with many challenges and opportunities. The ecological significance of Canada's North, especially its Arctic and Polar regions, also presents Canadians with certain environmental responsibilities. As we come to understand the wide variety of data coming in about the Northern regions of our planet as a result of the International Polar Year (2007-2008), Canada's role in Arctic research, industry, and environmental stewardship becomes clearer. This panel explores Canada’s science policy in the Arctic, addressing the issues and concerns of the wide variety of stakeholders in this resource-rich region.

Educating Socially Engaged Scientists and Engineers

Successful science policy requires all stakeholders to communicate and interact effectively. Socially engaged scientists and engineers share this responsibility and must be adequately prepared for the task. Unfortunately, the status quo in Canada is inadequate in educating future scientists and engineers to become socially engaged leaders. This panel dissects current shortcomings and discusses helpful models and possible solutions to this important Canadian issue.

Federal-Provincial-Municipal Governments: Where is the science policy nexus?

Coordination among different levels of governments is important to ensure the implementation of effective science policy, as lack of such coordination will often negatively affect innovation and commercialization. This panel discusses deficiencies in our decentralized system and suggests models for improvement. As part of this strategy it is important to ensure our systems enable and encourage Canadian and foreign investment. Arctic and Northern Science Policy: Canadian Responsibilities

Moderator Anita Dey Nuttall - Associate Director, Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta

Panellists David Hik - Professor, President of the International Arctic Science Committee, University of Alberta Louis Fortier - Professor, Director of Arctic Net, Université Laval Stephen Bocking - Professor and Chair, Environmental and Resource Studies Program, Trent University Peter Harrison - Professor and Director of the School of Policy Studies, Stauffer-Dunning Chair in Policy Studies, Queen's University ! David Hik spoke first, arguing that Canada Excellence Research Chairs were all needed a Northern policy responding both to examples of successes in Northern science, climate change and issues of sovereignty, but they need to be built on. Climate change economic and social development, and is having an impact on the Inuit as well as environmental protection. To do this, he opening up new seaways and access to the oil argued, we first need a strategy to sustain and reserves. Canada needs a science policy to enhance knowledge. Second, we need to build deal with all of this, and it must, in particular, research capacity in the North. Third, we need be integrated with a policy for transportation to find a way of enabling science policy. Hik and science for transportation. emphasized that Canada had assumed a leadership role in the International Polar Year Anita Dey Nuttall opened the session by by contributing in excess of $156 million, but introducing each of the speakers, and we still have a lot of work to do in managing thanking the CSPC organizers for the and analyzing the data collected so as to inclusion of a session on Arctic and Northern implement a policy that integrated Science. She stressed the importance of this international collaboration, national and panel, as it comes in the midst of the analysis territorial needs, and scientific support. of the data accumulated in the International Polar Year of 2007-2008. She then suggested Louis Fortier followed Hik, reinforcing many that there are subtle but important distinctions of the same points. Fortier claimed that between Arctic, Northern, and Polar issues. Canada currently has advisors, but is She expressed the opinion that the more nevertheless in serious need of policy. Canada Stephen Bocking spoke third, departing from important unifying question the panel would needs policy to ensure that the advice is the rest of the panel (and much of the rest of answer was “why doesn't Canada have an followed, and so that we can build on the the conference) to give a historical Arctic/Northern/Polar policy?” rather than existing blueprint. The Arctic Net, perspective on science policy in Northern “why should Canada have such a policy?” International Polar Year, and Canada Canada. Bocking spoke about science, especially environmental science, in the main challenge of the International Polar Year panel welcomed the increasing inclusion of Arctic from the 1940's to the 1980's. was that scientists, rather than policy-makers, Northern Canadian communities in the Explaining how and why there has never been were the ones planning the event. The discussions, taking such inclusion as a sign of an integrated Arctic science policy, Bocking ongoing challenge for science policy in the social justice and good national policy. Dey discussed how Arctic science in Canada’s Arctic, he argued, is going from knowledge to Nuttall wrapped up the discussion by North has nevertheless been shaped by action, a challenge that Harrison suggested suggesting that the conversation of several specific policies, ideas, and was shared by the Canadian Science Policy Arctic/Northern/Polar policy is only just understandings of the Arctic, as well as by the Conference, where knowledge has to be made beginning, and that the data gathered during various unique opportunities presented to useful and digestible for those who can act. the International Polar Year will present new scientists by Canada’s North. He also To encourage people to attend the upcoming challenges for science policy discourse in suggested that the science done in the Arctic conference in 2012, Harrison described the Canada. has influenced how we think about the Arctic. four themes that the International Polar Year The North has gone from contested terrain, to shares with CSPC: highlighting successes, resource frontier, to domesticated landscape, synthesizing findings, linking knowledge with to fragile wilderness, to indigenous homeland, users' needs, and advancing science education and finally to a global laboratory. In short, the and outreach. policies and priorities of the federal government (from continental defence, to The panel then received questions from Northern development, to environmental Martin Taylor, Jean-Philippe Lebleu, and protection, to Aboriginal self-governance and Duncan Stewart. Taylor's question was about land claims negotiations, to globalization and building and incentivizing a network of resource management) have shaped the scientists. Lebleu and Stewart were interested science done in the North, which in turn has in managing and balancing science, shaped policies and priorities. development projects, external demands for resources, and the concerns of Northern Fourth and finally, Peter Harrison spoke. He populations. Fortier answered the first reminded the audience that 40% of Canada is question by explaining that money was in the Arctic or Subarctic, and that unlike available from places like the Canada most other countries, Canada maintains a Foundation for Innovation, and that this was significant human population in its northern an extrapolation of Geneviève Tanguay's talk regions. Because of the relevance of this in the morning plenary about building from human dimension in Canada’s North, areas of strength. The panellists responded to Harrison pushed for including such issues in the other set of questions by looking at the upcoming International Polar Year examples of big projects from the past that Conference (to be held in Montréal in 2012), ignored local concerns in favour of meeting in addition to the normal concerns about national energy requirements and the domestic and foreign affairs. He felt that the regulation required for these projects; the Educating Socially Engaged Scientists and Engineers

Moderator Josée Nadia Drouin - Writer/Blogist, Director, Agence Science-Presse

Panellists Govind Gopakumar - Assistant Professor, General Studies Unit, Concordia University Jonathan Fishbein - Coordinator, Curriculum Enhancement, Engineers Without Borders Hans Hilgenkamp - Professor of Physics, University of Twente and Leiden University, Netherlands, Co-Founder of The Young Academy of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences Amir Khadir - Member of National Assembly for Mercier ! Given this, engineers need to assume Gopakumar argued that there are options positions of public leadership, and policy- available to meet the existing need for makers need to devise a framework for socially engaged engineers, and that his analysing public education. Gopakumar has framework can be used to evaluate competing developed such a framework, and has used it programs. to analyze three different engineering programs. His framework has three Jonathan Fishbein began by discussing an components: the topic of interest, the praxis engineering project with the best intentions of intervention and the leadership philosophy. that nevertheless went awry. Play pumps were !! He produced a nice tabulated summary of his introduced to Africa as a way to provide clean ! study, reproduced here: water by utilizing the willingness of children Josée Nadia Drouin began with an to play on a carousel; the project had all the introduction of all the speakers, a welcoming ! Topic of Leadership Praxis of best intentions of using science and of the audience, and a description of the topic Interest Philosophy Intervention Engineering Policy Expert Case Study technology in socially beneficial ways. Later of the panel: a discussion of our vision for Public Policy, Engineer studies found that the play pumps were not Carnegie scientists’ social engagement. How can we Mellon being used, however, as local communities teach, foster, learn, and encourage our Science & Society Thoughtful Design preferred the older manual pumps. The study Technology Engineer engineers and scientists to work towards Studies, found two problems with the play pumps. socially just and equitable solutions? Rensselaer First, they were more complicated machines Polytechnic Technology Sustainable Reflexive Project than the traditional pumps, and the Govind Gopakumar spoke first about efforts Dynamics and Development Engineer Planning and communities did not possess the parts or Sustainable Implementation to formally alter engineering education. He Development, expertise to repair them. Second, the daily argued that the world is becoming Technical lives of the communities were not optimal for University of increasingly global, and that the complexity Delft their use. Women collect water in the of our policy issues is increasing as the morning, but the pumps required hours of environment becomes increasingly central. play by children before there would be sufficient water in the reservoir. Since have a commitment to service. The Young way to accomplish more socially engaged children do not play overnight, the reservoir Academies (including the Global Young science was for scientists to pursue elected was empty when the women of the Academy) have four goals: to give a voice to offices in order to influence the funding community went to collect water and they young scientists, to promote science as a priorities of science. either had to “play” on the carousel career, to narrow the gap between the themselves or else go to the nearest traditional developed and the developing world, and to Numerous people posed questions and offered pump. The issue was thus that the developers encourage novel interdisciplinary approaches comments for the session. These comments did not understand the societal context, nor to international problems. The Young and questions all attempted to get the did they adequately communicate with the Academies reach these goals by fostering panellists to provide more details on how to community. Fishbein explained how stimulating interdisciplinary interactions get their ideas implemented in Canada, and Engineers Without Borders was working to between the members of the Young how they have overcome resistance to change the existing developmental aid model Academy, by interacting with the Senior change. Gopakumar, Hilgenkamp and by improving communication skills, working Academy on questions of science policies, Fishbein stressed that part of the solution had in an interdisciplinary team, embracing social and through outreach efforts such as school to be grassroots; socially engaged and responsibility, encouraging entrepreneurship, visits and an interactive website. energetic people have want to work on and fostering systems thinking. Engineers projects of international significance, and they Without Borders is not only tackling projects The final speaker of the session was Amir have to convince professors and politicians around the world, but also doing outreach in Khadir. Khadir described how the social that the problems and approaches to those Canada to alter the education system so as to status quo primarily benefits the first world, problems are worth undertaking. Khadir a) teach the required skills for socially and even more specifically the elite of the stressed that much could be done if the engaged engineers, and b) start thinking about first world. Such people, Khadir argued, have Canadian government would meet its tomorrow's problems rather than yesterday's. little motivation to seek radical solutions to previous promises for international social engagement and responsibility. He development and aid. The panel agreed that Hans Hilgenkamp spoke next about how the described a disconcerting attitude among social engagement was essential, and that any Netherlands (and several other nations) has working scientists, most of whom come from avenue to have it added to the political and altered the structure of its academic society to wealthy first world backgrounds. Murray educational agenda would hopefully be harness the energy of young academics. Most Gell-Mann is representative of this attitude, beneficial, and definitely worth pursuing. academic societies are an end-of-career having often claimed that his job as a scientist achievement, and the members are asked to was not to deal with the consequences of his take an active role in policy and consultation research because science was a self-serving because of years of proven expertise. The quest for knowledge; this despite the fact that Germans were the first to find a way to Gell-Mann was funded by the United States harness the energy of young researchers, and military for much of his work. Khadir argued the Netherlands copied them. The Young for a radical solution to this problem, one Academy recruits members who have where scientists maintain their independence recently achieved a Ph.D or equivalent in any to direct their research yet also contemplate field, who are demonstrably brilliant, and who the consequences of their endeavours. One Federal-Provincial-Municipal Governments: Where is the science policy nexus?

Moderator J. Adam Holbrook - Adjunct Professor and Associate Director, Centre for Policy Research on Science and Technology, Simon Fraser University

Panellists Louise Shaxson - Director, Delta Partnership, United Kingdom Marc Fortin - Assistant Deputy Minister, Federal Ministry of Agriculture Geneviève Tanguay - Assistant Deputy Minister, Québec Ministry of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade Allison Barr - Director, Research Branch of the Ontario Research Fund, Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation [in place of George Ross, Deputy Minister, Ontario Ministry of Research and Innovation]

different models and frameworks being used She concluded by saying that there is no in the U.K. to assess the impact of actions and nexus, but rather a complex and evolving policy changes. These models and landscape in which science and a variety of frameworks are being used to solve problems complicated relationships coexist. involving people from a broad range of interests with varying and complex working Shaxson's talk, in essence, argued that actors relationships. The old model was a logical throughout the science policy-making process framework: policy input and activities result need to be responsibilized to allow them to in external interaction and influence, and make sustainable and informed decisions outputs that can be measured through about their own behaviour during the process outcomes and impacts. In this traditional of science policy-making. Adam Holbrook opened the session and model, accountability is hierarchical, with introduced each speaker, announcing a actors at the input position ultimately Marc Fortin's talk, entitled "Clocks to change in the panellists owing to George responsible for outcomes. Shaxson argued Clouds," was about shifting from hierarchical Ross's unavailability; in his place Allison that this old method has been known to be modes of thinking to cross-sectoral Barr was present to discuss the Ontario ineffective for some time, and that we should innovation clusters. He opened by claiming Ministry of Research and Innovation’s be (and are) moving towards a social model that science is excellent at solving problems activities. Holbrook pointed out that the title with distributed responsibility that looks more that involve the application of protocols, such of the session was therefore somewhat like an ecosystem than a linear heirarchy. as mapping the human genome. Complex misleading because none of the panellists This new conception of science policy- (rather than complicated) problems like were drawn from municipalities making would require messy partnerships, obesity, by contrast, require a collection of efforts to modify and assess the behaviour of solutions. Fortin called the former 'ordinary' The first speaker was Louise Shaxson, who different actors in the network, and an solutions, while the latter are 'extraordinary.' summarized her recent work analysing the understanding of the larger social context. For Fortin, his job, and the job of other managers, is to be a catalyst for change from Economic Recovery, was to focus on areas Holbrook posed the first question to the panel, the old system of clockwork hierarchy to a where there was existing competence that asking them to give an immediate response to new system that functions more like a cloud could be mobilized and focussed on a their colleagues and to reflect on the under- where responsibility, empowerment, and competitive, innovative, and productive representation of municipalities in this panel. control are distributed amongst various project. Since 2008, Québec has taken the Shaxson and Fortin discussed the important stakeholders. He then spoke, in general terms, lead in collaborating with the other provinces, point that although the clouds, ecosystems, about initiatives within his ministry to change taking a regional approach to solve the big and networks of science policy-making need the conversation from one of spending and problems. to be more accessible, the main responsibility accountability to what he called 'appreciative still lies with government, if only because it is inquiries.' Fortin summarized his role in this Allison Barr was the fourth and final elected to lead. Fortin pointed out that the nicely by saying that his job is to manage panellist. Barr's current mandate regards the federal government often tries, sometimes relationships, not people; if he manages the Ontario Research Fund and cancer research, problematically, to spread out its facilities relationships well, then every stakeholder will but she and the Ontario Ministry for Research (and employment) as much as possible to have been engaged in the process of coming and Innovation are in the midst of a policy meet the needs of communities. Alex Bielak up with a solution. review of the Ontario innovation agenda pointed out that too much of the discussion according to five themes: supporting was abstract and that it would have benefited The third speaker was Geneviève Tanguay, excellence, producing targeted investments, from some concrete examples. Fortin and who spoke about innovation in Québec, the leveraging skills and knowledge, Barr offered examples from their own new inter-governmental (i.e. inter-provincial) acknowledging the business climate, and ministries as illustrations, e.g. about the mechanism, and the regional approach. She being a catalyst for innovation. Like Shaxson complex relationships at play between dairy gave a brief history of the Québec and Fortin, Barr described the science policy producers and dairy processors who have government's initiatives to gain control of network as a complicated ecosystem, saying been brought together with consumer and innovation and the economy since the 1960's; that it often gets represented as linear for health organizations to do more than simply she went through the Quiet Revolution, simplicity and clarity. figure out the best prices. A comment was 1970's Québécois politics, 1980's economic made that the recent Science Policy Exchange development, 1990's innovation, and the Barr also spoke about collaboration with other at McGill University was a municipal consolidation of innovation and Québécois provinces and within a regional approach, like initiative, and the panel was asked about the policies in the 2000's. This historical narrative Tanguay before her. She gave examples of the roles universities could play in developing culminated in 2006 with the Stratégie regional approach in Ontario, such as the complex relationships. The panel suggested Québécois de la Recherche et de l'Innovation Ontario Network of Excellence, the MaRS that universities have an agenda to push their (SQRI). The SQRI is unique, she argued, Discovery District, and Ontario Centres of own research, but that they can sometimes because it is integrated with economic society Excellence. All of these initiatives aim to serve as a neutral space for analyzing and culture, it is integrated with innovation, harness existing expertise, in a network with relationships. and there is a chain from innovation and multiple entry points and relationships that accountability. Québec's strategy, as she are centrally coordinated by the government; emphasized in her previous talk during the they also have an ambition of creating global Plenary on Universities as Agents of excellence and lucrative entrepreneurship.

A Glance at Bioscience in Canada

Biotechnology and Pharmecutical Industry: Challenges, Opportunities, and Policy Options

Biotechnology continues to advance new frontiers in medical science. Many Canadian pharmaceutical companies stand out as global competitors in this industry, making a major contribution to Canada’s economy. Nurturing and regulating such technology inevitably presents both opportunities and challenges, and the potential of providing the proper incentives for researchers is paramount. This panel investigates which incentives are needed to overcome challenges and capitalize on the prospects offered by Canadian innovation in this sector.

Bioenergy is an emerging field: Is it the coming revolution in energy production?

Often hailed as the coming revolution in energy production, bioenergy is an emerging field grappling with several key issues of science policy. The development of bioenergy technologies promises to solve several important problems facing Canada and the world, making it necessary to bring emerging technologies from the lab to the marketplace quickly and effectively, and to anticipate and create appropriate kinds of infrastructure to help overcome initial market barriers. This panel investigates how we can balance the needs of public policy leaders with industry stakeholders, while facing up to society's need to have such technologies commercialized.

Biodiversity: Are existing policies adapting to current challenges?

Deemed the "International Year of Biodiversity," 2010 is an opportune time to reassess Canada's science policy for biodiversity research. Given how ecologically diverse Canada’s vast geography is, and how difficult and dynamic ecological research is, science policy in this domain must remain adaptive enough to address and predict new disciplinary challenges. Successful study of Canada’s biologically diverse ecology requires various disciplines to communicate effectively across national borders that are necessarily and readily crossed by both critical species and scientific knowledge. This panel investigates how scientists and science policies can adequately adapt as the subjects they study are experiencing increasingly rapid rates of change. Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Industry: Challenges, Opportunities, and Policy Options

Moderator Christopher J Paige - Vice-President, University Health Network

Panellists Marc-André Gagnon - Assistant Professor, School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University Michele Savoie - General Manager, Montreal Invivo Mark Lievonen - President, Sanofi Pasteur Limited Rahim Rezaei - PhD Candidate, McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health, University of Toronto ! product is increasing, 2) the number of new area to grow their economy. Leadership from molecules being approved by regulators is both the provincial and federal governments decreasing, and 3) many pharmaceuticals are is necessary to exploit these opportunities. coming off patent, threatening companies’ revenue streams. These are in addition to Key policy suggestions presented by Savoie more general challenges facing industry in included expanding the pool of risk capital at Canada such as the aging population, reduced all stages of firm development, from seed This panel was tasked with discussing and supplies of credit and venture capital capital, venture capital, and through mature identifying which policies could achieve following the global financial crisis, a lack of growth; strengthening the links between tighter connections between academics and skilled management talent, and increased universities and industry by helping to the biotechnology and pharmaceutical competition from emerging economies. eliminate cultural barriers to encourage more industry in Canada. Moderator Christopher collaboration; speeding the adoption of Paige started by suggesting that there needs to Two opportunities for the industry include a innovative products and services through be close links between academics and shift in the pharmaceutical industry’s R&D government procurement policies that make industry, and that clusters around the world model to one that outsources more R&D at federal and provincial governments first- show how well such connections work. earlier development stages, giving small firms adopters, thereby helping to develop the access to research dollars. Second, the market scale needed to penetrate global Michele Savoie began with some of the personalized medical field is growing quickly, markets; addressing the lack of experienced challenges and opportunities facing the and will likely continue to do so for at least entrepreneurial talent in private-sector firms; biotechnology and pharmaceutical sector in the next 5 years. Canada has a strong nurturing and strengthening clusters of Canada, and provided some policy biotechnology and pharmaceutical industry, interrelated firms; and making good choices suggestions that could help foster the good universities, an attractive tax rate, and about which sectors to support. development of the industry. The key sound finances in place to exploit these challenges facing the industry, she said, opportunities, but other developed countries Mark Lievonen provided the panel with an include: 1) the average cost to develop a new also see bio-pharmaceutical sectors as a key industry perspective, using Sanofi Pasteur as an example of a firm that does substantial as it helps fund new ventures and move innovation policies put in place to support the R&D investment in Canada. Pharmaceutical through strong candidate products that bio-pharmaceutical industry are, therefore, firms like Pasteur Sanofi are facing the currently lack funding. Additional investment not necessarily justified, as the calculated “patent-cliff” as many products are coming by banks and pension plans would be useful, benefits do not warrant the costs. Gagnon off patent between 2010-2014. This provides as there is currently a lot of dialogue around questioned whether the money spent on more money to health care as generic drugs innovation, but little action. Capitalizing on supporting innovation in Canada could not will reduce expenditures, but reduced the buzz around the issue and moving forward best be served in other ways to improve revenues will drive down the available with small steps will help lead to larger, health outcomes, especially since most new resources for R&D and investment. At the bolder steps later on. drugs “do not bring any therapeutic advance same time, industry in Canada is facing a few over what is currently in the market.” key challenges with respect to the regulatory Marc-André Gagnon provided an alternative approval process and the existing intellectual perspective, examining the cost of innovation Rahim Razaei reported on research he property regime. The regulatory approval policy and questioning the government’s conducted on the emerging bio- costs have reached 1 billion dollars, and return on investment. Gagnon pointed out that pharmaceutical markets of India, China, and approval currently takes nearly ten years on current policies to encourage innovation Brazil. The Chinese market, as an example, average (up from 7-8 years); intellectual provide tax credits to companies to encourage was estimated to be a $21 billion market in property policies could therefore stand a R&D investment, ensure fifteen years of 2008, and is forecasted to become a $50 patent term restoration, extending the life of exclusivity for drugs in Quebec, and billion market by 2013. China has made patents to make up for the increased approval artificially inflate drug prices. Furthermore, significant investments in R&D and is period. Canada has moved to 8 years on data Canada’s adoption of best-practice policies building manufacturing and research protection, but the E.U. has adopted data around drug approval and therapeutic infrastructure, e.g. by investing in science protection of 11 years, and the U.S. is moving assessment could significantly impact health parks and developing human resources to to 12 years; approving longer data protection, care costs. produce a lot of new graduate students. These he argued, is a strategy from which Canada three nations have traditionally been a could also benefit. Gagnon then examined the costs of these destination for manufacturing, but Razaei said programs. Most intended to promote a that they are increasingly becoming a Canadian innovation in the biotechnology and business environment that encourages R&D destination for medical trials and R&D pharmaceutical industry could also benefit and the development of drugs in Canada. All services. As such, these nations are growing from a greater focus on clustering. There are told, these programs cost $4.9 billion. competitors that have access to large domestic strong clusters in place thanks to good Gagnon, however, estimated that the value markets and thereby have a better chance of universities and industry presence; but, he added by companies in the pharmaceutical developing their own products through argued, these need to be reinforced to help industrial group Rx&D is approximately $4.8 domestic innovation pathways. One emerging support and attract additional investment in billion. After examining direct and indirect trend that Razaei sees is the growing the region. Additionally, the government employment by these firms and the average fragmentation of the drug development value- should look at strategic procurement practices firm, Gagnon calculates that the cost of chain. A possible future strategy for Canada, to support new firms and build market scale. innovation policies is approximately $85,000 he suggested, is to find a competitive niche Additional public-sector support is valuable, dollars per employee. Gagnon argued that the within that value chain. Bioenergy is an emerging field: Is it the coming revolution in energy production?

Moderator Marc Saner - Director, Institute for Science, Society, and Policy, University of Ottawa

Panellists Alison Ouellet - Director, Government Affairs, Canadian Renewable Fuels Association Catherine Cobden - Vice President, Economics and Regulatory Affairs, Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC) Celine Bak - Russell Mitchell Group, 2010 Sustainable Development Technology Canada Cleantech Growth & Go-To-Market Report

massive change in consumer behavior, public While there is no question that oil will be policy, and commercial expansion. Ouellet with us for a long time, renewable fuels bring anticipates a coming biofuels revolution as sustainable sources to the table: switchgrass, significant as the information revolution of biomass, forest residues and even municipal the 1980s. The central concept of this coming solid waste. Ouellet emphasized the revolution, according to Ouellet, will be connections between parts of the living world, “sustainability.” especially the connection between the use of renewable fuels and the reduction of pollution Sustainability, in essence, is a capacity to and greenhouse gas emissions. She also drew Marc Saner opened the panel on bioenergy by endure, to last, and to carry on. Since the attention to the connection between raising the provocative question of whether world simply cannot endure while relying on sustainability and opportunity, especially in bioenergy is the coming revolution in energy crude oil, the prospects for sustainable energy the developing world. Severing the reliance production. With a huge desire within production presented by biofuel innovation of developing countries on crude oil prices Canada, and amongst her trading partners, for becomes especially significant. While we can will benefit economies, farmers, and the green and clean energy, the fact that Canada’s debate the specifics, few would debate that in environment, leading to what some call a ecology also maintains an enormous biomass the coming decades, more people will be green revolution in Africa that combines compared to other countries makes this a competing for fewer and scarcer energy energy, agriculture, and technology to offer pressing question for Canada. resources, with inevitable economic and economic and social hope. In short, Ouellet environmental consequences. Canada has argued, biofuels are a huge opportunity for Alison Ouellet spoke first, remarking that moved in the right direction, Ouellet argued, people in developing countries as well as at science stands at the centre of the current by mandating a Renewable Fuel Standard, home, rooted in scientific advancement and renewable fuels industry, and that new which requires a minimum amount of ethanol discovery. technological advancements promise still and biodiesel to be blended into gasoline. greater benefits. The bioenergy landscape is This policy will cut emissions equivalent to The panel’s second speaker, Catherine driven by the achievement and innovation of one million cars per year from our roads, as Cobden, began by arguing that Canada was the renewable fuels industry, along with a well as provide jobs. beginning a period of economic renewal with

regard to forest products. The Canadian benefit the Canadian forest industry. Their industry in order to offer policy platforms in forest industry, through partnerships with results showed that certain technologies did terms of science, technology and innovation, environmental organizations and not meet a cost-to-capital threshold and would energy and economic productivity, and communities, has remained committed to never be profitable, but that combinations of greenhouse gas reduction. Bak argued that, improving its environmental credentials, existing and emerging technologies could be, from a political perspective, all of these things aiming to be the best in the world in forest such as combining large sawmills with are worth talking about together. The report management practices. Cobden went on to pyrolysis oil production. Sawmills are the aimed to take a census of the small and describe a strategic push to simultaneously key economic driver for this industry and medium technology companies in Canada, protect and maximize value from Canada’s FPAC study supports the claim that they will and to broadly understand their capacities, amazing forest resource, and began asking continue to be the driver for bioenergy in the growth rates, investments and exports. A how best to support the forest industry during future, as mills converted to bioenergy and database was also produced to collect the this transformation. biochemistry production show a high surprising amount of information offered and potential for profit. collected from these companies to help The Canadian forest business model is, decision-makers dealing with both individual Cobden claimed, simply broken. Cobden One of Cobden’s key messages was that there companies and the industry as a whole. asked how we can support the forest industry is no direct way to get biomass to bioenergy during its coming transformation, what role producers; it is essential that policymakers Bak compared the data in the report with a bioenergy will have in the future, and how to working on wood allocation be aware of the similar report of U.S. companies, and showed best craft public policy for the forest industry. need for collaboration. But the bottom line is that the Canadian clean technology industry is To answer these questions, FPAC ran a that integrating bioenergy with forest product more globally competitive in terms of collaborative study including 65 experts, operations offers a sustainable and profitable exports. Still, we need to be better at valuing, provincial and federal governments, future for the Canadian forest industry, adopting, and investing in Canadian academics, and technology suppliers involving new collaborations and partners, as technologies in order to reap the benefits of examining nearly 60 emerging bioenergy well as protecting and increasing employment our own innovation. technologies. First, they inquired about the in our rural communities. The Canadian readiness of these technologies. Further advantage may well be that we are prepared Moderator Marc Saner summarized that all analysis was only carried out if technologies to move on these emerging technologies first. presenters seemed to be in agreement about were already beyond the R&D phase; this the potential of bioenergy in Canada, in separated innovations that offered viable Celine Bak gave the final presentation of the accordance with their specific mandates. The solutions from those that were untested ideas. panel, which concentrated on clean question period focussed on discussing technology. Bak described a report she different priorities for the bioenergy industry, The study then compared 32 traditional and helped produce, developed in conjunction the role public policy should play in emerging uses of forest products in different with the federal and provincial governments supporting industry innovation and bridging areas of Canada, at different scales, and as well as regional and industry partners, the innovation-market gap, Canada’s potential through two business cycles in an attempt to which offers a fact-based analysis and unified as a clean technology leader, and concerns determine how to use these technologies to narrative of the complex clean technology over the reliance of biofuel on agriculture.

Biodiversity: Are existing policies adapting to current challenges?

Moderator Rees Kassen - Chair of the Partnership Group for Science and Engineering (PAGSE)

Panellists Gunilla Öberg - Director, Institute for Resources, Environment, and Sustainability, UBC Murray Rudd - Professor, Environment Department, University of York, United Kingdom Andrew Gonzalez - Professor and Director, Quebec Centre for Biodiversity Science, McGill Luc Brouillet - Conservateur, Marie-Victorin Herbarium, Institut de recherche en biologie végétale, Université de Montréal

Gunilla Öberg spoke first, describing other hand, is one of knowledge translation. biodiversity scholars as often feeling Biodiversity experts generally have a naïve frustrated at politicians who don’t appreciate understanding of science-policy interactions, the importance of their work. She suggested and don’t really understand politicians’ needs. that instead of blaming their audience, the This, Öberg argued, needs to change, but biodiversity community ought to reflect on these challenges can be met if biodiversity how they communicate their message to researchers become more reflective about public and government stakeholders. what they do, and better understand the needs of their audience. As a first step, Öberg This panel consistently pointed out that Öberg identified two types of challenges for recommended that we stop fixating on the Canada’s biodiversity community faces many biodiversity researchers: interdisciplinary ideal of a pristine wilderness and instead challenges, but ought to remain optimistic challenges (academic challenges involving focus on actual, evolving ecologies. about opportunities at the intersection of the integration of knowledge from different research, policy, government, and the public. fields) and trans-academic challenges (issues Murray Rudd described an exercise he led, Rees Kassen began by noting that 2010 had of collaboration between academic insiders which identified “Canada’s Top 40” research been declared the international year of and outsiders). Biodiversity researchers must questions that could a) align biodiversity biodiversity by the U.N., which resulted in meet both types of challenge to get their research with the needs of policy-makers, and both international and Canadian initiatives for message across to stakeholders. The first sort b) increase communication between the recording and preserving biodiversity. He of challenge requires biodiversity researchers conservation biology community and policy- introduced the new Science Pages initiative, to somehow integrate findings from the makers’ tasked with designing policies to which aims to provide strong, credible, and history, philosophy, and sociology of science protect Canada’s biodiversity. It began by non-prescriptive science briefs for MPs that that have shown how research is, in fact, soliciting almost 400 candidate questions can enable debate and provide graduate always impregnated with values. By nationally from scientists and policy-makers students work opportunities at the interface of examining the values implicit in biodiversity that, if answered, would determine the science, policy, and communications. research, researchers will be able to better scientific basis for decision-making regarding integrate their knowledge with their peers’. biodiversity conservation in the face of The major trans-academic challenge, on the current and future environmental stressors. The questions were then winnowed down to Andrew Gonzalez spoke of “Canada’s opportunity since economic inequality only 40 through a process involving a Biodiversity Opportunity.” Like Öberg, positively correlated with biodiversity loss. collaborative synthesis with representatives Gonzalez claimed that biodiversity has from academia, the federal government, conventionally been an isolated, “silo” Luc Brouillet spoke last, describing how industry, and NGOs. science, with not enough transdisciplinary various levels of government have taken partnerships. Despite a huge audience responsibility for biodiversity, conservation, The 40 questions fall under eleven main interested in the work of biodiversity management, and use, but must provide themes: ecosystem structure and function; scientists, doing aligned research and enough support to science to meet their land cover and habitats; populations and organizing the biodiversity community at a commitments; governments are committed to species; resource-based industries; parks and national level is challenging work. specific actions, but these require scientific protected areas; environmental change; knowledge and input to be accomplished. environmental values; economic benefits and Human activity currently drives biodiversity Brouillet provided a few examples of small- costs; individual and community well-being; loss more than at any other time, but the scale situations where these commitments adaptive management; and issues of policy Canadian biodiversity policy-research require additional support. First of all, Canada and governance. Some of these themes interface is not ready to meet this challenge, needs to leverage its untapped knowledge overlap with those generated in a parallel being hampered by 4 major factors: a limited base from our natural history collections to American exercise, while others are different: knowledge of Canadian biodiversity; a slow meet the needs of our unique ecosystem: it is Canadian biodiversity priorities tend to focus rate of discovery compared to the rate at estimated that we possess over 50 million on governance and adaptive management which the environment is changing; an specimens which are currently inaccessible, crossing jurisdictions, including aboriginal inability to undertake trans-disciplinary which must be made public and digitized so engagement, whereas in the United States the studies of the ecological, economic, and that governments have something on which to focus was on environmental stressors and social impacts of biodiversity change; and the base their biodiversity decisions. These data land cover changes in resource industries. The lack of a national program for biodiversity must also make their way into international second phase of this project, beginning involving long-term funding collaborations databases. A new network, Canadensis, will January 2011, will prioritize these questions, between researchers, businesses, government, be used to compile and present this data, but examine possible constraints to biodiversity and NGOs. Gonzalez believes the solution to there is as of yet no long-term support. In all research, and assess conservation researchers’ the Canadian biodiversity research challenge of Brouillet’s examples, the impact of our policy impacts. Rudd expects that increasing the implementation of such a program. government’s well-meaning policies will be clarity about biodiversity research priorities strongly limited by insufficient funding; if can both increase knowledge and enhance Canadians know the value of biodiversity, Canadians want the research to adequately policy relevance. The future conservation and Gonzalez noted, and prioritize protecting it inform policy implementation, more support management of Canada’s biodiversity above all quality-of-life indicators except is required. requires a balance of aligned and unaligned poverty reduction. Politicians ought to be research in natural science and policy, and an aware of this latent support for protecting understanding of the values underlying biodiversity, and should see this as a win-win attitudes towards biodiversity in Canada.

Special Workshop on Knowledge Translation and Brokering

Organizer Environment Canada’s Science and Technology Liaison Division, ResearchImpact and the Canadian Water Network in collaboration with York University, Canadian Health Services Research Foundation, and the British High Commission

Moderator Alex Bielak, Senior Advisor, United Nations - Water and Senior Fellow and Knowledge Broker UNU-INWEH

Speakers Melanie Barwick - Psychologist and Associate Scientist, Community Health Systems Resource Group and Scientific Director Knowledge Translation, CHES – Research Institute, The Hospital for Sick Children Leah Brannen - A/Director, Science and Technology Liaison Division, Environment Canada Andrew Campbell - Managing Director, Triple Helix Consulting, Australia David Clements - Director, Corporate Planning and Accountability, Canadian Institute for Health Information Eric Gagné - Director, Science Policy Division, Environment Canada Javier Gracia-Garza - Director General, Science and Technology Strategies Directorate, Environment Canada David Phipps - Director, Research Services & Knowledge Exchange, York University Courtney Price - S&T Liaison Officer, Science and Technology Liaison Division, Environment Canada Karl Schaefer - Senior Advisor to the Director General, Water Science and Technology Directorate, Environment Canada Andrei Sedoff - Knowledge Mobilization Officer, York University Louise Shaxson - Director, Delta Partnership, United Kingdom David Yetman - Director, Programs and Knowledge Mobilization, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research

Dr. Alex Bielak welcomed participants to the • How can research funders, brokers and workshop and introduced Dr. Andrew communicators add value, without being Campbell, the keynote speaker. Campbell’s overly prescriptive or stifling the captivating address spanned an array of creativity and serendipity that often practical experiences in knowledge translation characterizes the best scientific inquiry and brokering, citing Land and Water and discovery? Australia as a case study. The keynote gave an international dimension to the workshop, • In particular, what knowledge brokering with relevance to the Canadian landscape, and translation strategies work at the addressing concerns such as: rarely elegant interface between science and policy? • How can applied research investors and managers create conditions conducive to Campbell reflected on his seven years of the production of influential research? experience as CEO of Land and Water Australia, a time at which the corporation Recognizing that knowledge translation and knowledge brokering tools to actively engage established itself as a respected knowledge brokering is a relatively new field and with a specific user community. The brokering organization managing knowledge participants have different levels of interactive session provided participants with assets from twenty years of research and more understanding and practical application, a a broad overview of tools currently in use and than 1600 projects. Drawing on some choice among three skill- and capacity- drew on the collective experience to explore powerful lessons learned from his experience, building sessions was offered to provide the boundaries of a knowledge brokering Campbell offered these astute words for the hands-on learning experiences. Dr. Melanie toolkit and what types of tools might populate audience to contemplate during the remainder Barwick, David Yetman and Dr. David such a toolkit. of the workshop; knowledge brokering and Phipps presented “Making Sense of translation within a well-designed system can Knowledge Mobilization,” a combination of A highlight of the workshop was the Expert be immensely useful and valuable. It cannot structured and improvised learning that Panel session moderated by Bielak and be an add-on; it needs to be part of the introduced the concept of knowledge featuring three of Canada’s leading experts in organization. mobilization from three professional knowledge translation and brokering. Phipps perspectives and then opened the floor to spoke to the practitioner’s perspective; David Eric Gagné facilitated the Knowledge Café, a stimulated discussion and questions from the Clements gave voice to that of a non- dynamic, interactive forum in which audience. Dr. Leah Brannen, Courtney Price government organization in the field of participants travelled from table to table to and Andrei Sedoff delivered a hands-on health, and Karl Schaefer imparted his views discuss their choice of 10 priority items on session, “Effective Written Communication to as a senior federal government employee. knowledge translation and brokering. The Targeted Audiences,” to sharpen participants’ After a brief presentation by each, a lively session was arguably one of the most instincts when identifying targeted audiences exchange of opinions, concerns, and ideas engaging, deemed by the majority of and exploring what aspects of research ensued, prompted by provocative questions participants to be an effective way to network “speaks” to different audiences. The session from the moderator and the audience. Several and explore a wide range of topics in a short also sought to improve participants’ ability to key messages emerged. Among them: move time. The facilitated discourse drew craft written communication products to meet beyond debates about terminology and “just participants into a lively exchange of ideas users’ needs. Facilitated by Louise Shaxson, do it”; measure impact at the user level and and recommendations on such topics as: a the “Finding the Right Tools” session acknowledge that measures can be suite of products and tools, community of addressed the struggle to identify appropriate qualitative; recognize models and practices of practice, targeted dissemination, program commerce, marketing, technology transfer, design, performance metrics, and human and funding and grant application procedures resources and training. The dialogue to act as drivers and to legitimize activities; stimulated much discussion and provided a don’t expect a cultural change valuing little-C unique opportunity for participants to share over Big-C communication to be delivered their thoughts and forge new networks within from the top-down in large organizations; the knowledge translation and brokering and, develop a cohesive voice before entering community. into an international arena, as we have a lot more considerations to sort through, including the rules of engagement. Before, during and after the workshop, This Special Workshop on Knowledge participants and other interested individuals Translation and Brokering was hosted by the relayed insights and provided updates on the following partners: event through an active social network using blogs and a discussion forum on the workshop’s website. Over the course of the day, a volley of Twitter messages relayed Environment Canada’s interesting observations and added to Science and Technology conversations about the sessions. To foster continued dialogue among participants post- Liaison Division event, the workshop’s network website (http://researchimpact.othree.ca/ktkb2010) remains open to attendees and other members Canadian Water Network of the knowledge translation and brokering community. The lessons from the workshop were relayed to, and built upon, at a ResearchImpact subsequent workshop entitled 'Improving the impact of development research through better communication and uptake', held in the

United Kingdom in November 2010.

Prior to closing remarks by Bielak, Campbell And was organized in collaboration with the returned to the podium to present a Listener’s following partners: Report that reflected on the day. Campbell congratulated the organizers on a job well done, noting an overwhelmingly positive impression of the workshop. He stated that York University the cross-sectional nature of the participants in the workshop was an enormous strength and a lot could be gained by ongoing Canadian Health Services networking and communities of practice across the mix of sectors, organizations and Research Foundation institutions represented at the event.

British High Commission

Ways Forward: Closing Remarks and Reflections on CSPC 2010, Prospects for CSPC 2011

The final session was a chance for all the CSPC benefited from well-known engaged scientists, reaching into schools, and delegates and participants to provide feedback speakers to help establish its credibility and supporting graduate students with science about CSPC 2010, to offer ideas to improve legitimacy, next year’s conference should aim policy fellowships. To that end, the the conference next year, and to discuss ways to bring in fresh voices. This could be conference should be a venue where the of taking Canadian science policy forward in achieved by inviting students familiar with Centre could share its results and the lights of what was learned at this year’s science and policy, thereby encouraging a challenges it faced over the year, moving the conference. new generation of scientists to understand conference away from pure theory and policy issues from the university level towards active participation in an ongoing Much of the feedback focussed on onwards. CSPC could also become a venue experiment and practice of supporting science congratulating the CSPC committee for where scientists could interact with high policy work in Canada. organizing CSPC 2010. There was a broad school students, to engage young people in consensus that the Canadian Science Policy science and policy early on. Finally, there were suggestions for new Centre needs help promoting itself and telling sessions for next year’s program. Participants the story of its organization, as most Other groups that were suggested as wanted to see a panel describing how participants were not aware that it is a small important invitees for next year’s CSPC were Canada’s science policy can reflect our group of volunteers in need of resources and the provincial associations of science cultural and intellectual diversity, a panel connections to the science policy community. teachers, a selection of lighthouse examples about building bridges across all levels of It was hoped by all that further support would of leading scientific efforts in Canada, government and sectors of the economy, and improve this already excellent conference in students of international science policy, the a panel encouraging people to come practice the future. One suggestion inspired by the new science media centre, and industry and study science in Canada so that they career development workshop was a CSPC representatives including small and medium might eventually become ambassadors mentorship program, whereby people enterprises in science-related fields. The engaged in science diplomacy. Another panel working in science policy would agree to be Canadian science policy community would could be devoted to legislative or regulatory paired with people looking for a mentor. clearly benefit from more interactions with science-relevant activities to improve our these stakeholders, and more strident efforts understanding of the policy process. There A recurring theme in the closing comments need to be made to appropriately engage was even a suggestion to invite a futurist to revolved around the need for a fresh them. describe how science policy might look in the perspective. This could be achieved by having next few decades. It was also hoped that next a public panel with “monsieur et madame In the future, if the Canadian Science Policy year’s parallel sessions could report back to tout-le-monde” to explore the relationship Centre receives the support it needs, the each other with the key points from their between science and the public, and perhaps conference could serve as its progress report, discussions, so that the entire conference holding the CANARIE science fair in a public a follow-up on its work of promoting could benefit from those conversations. venue. Similarly, while the first few years of entrepreneurship, developing socially Interviews and further coverage of CSPC 2010 are available online at: www.sciencepolicy.ca

During the Course of CSPC 2010, the CSPC Organizing Committee had the pleasure of sitting down for interviews with many distinguished delegates and participants. Please find these interviews online, and help us carry on the conversation. CSPC 2010 Organizing Committee

The following individuals establish the main Organizing Committee for CSPC 2010. On behalf of all stakeholders involved with this important event, we thank you for your tireless efforts, and invaluable insight. Without you this event would not be possible. Thank you!

Organizing Committee Chair

Mehrdad Hariri DVM, MSc Senior Research Analyst McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health

Shiva Amiri, Ph.D Anton Neschadim, MSc, Ph.D candidate Curtis Forbes, MA Science and Innovation Officer Department of Medical Biophysics, University of Toronto PhD Student, IHPST British High Commission University of Toronto Wilson Kwong, M.Sc. Candidate Robin McLernon, MSc Pharmacology Jeff Sharom, Ph.D candidate Temmy Latner Centre for Palliative Care University of Toronto University of Toronto

Marcius Extavour, Ph.D Trevor McKee, Ph.D Mario Rivero-Huguet, Ph.D. AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellow Postdoctoral Fellow Research Manager United States Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Ontario Cancer Institute/ Department of Food Science and Agricultural Chemistry, Resources University Health Network McGill University

Christine Zhang, Ph.D Candidate James Wagner, M. Sc., Ph.D Candidate Emmanuel Mongin, Ph.D Laboratory of Dr.James Booth School of Computer Science, Research Associate Department of Immunology, McGill University Council of Canadian Academies University of Toronto Jeffrey Kinder, Ph.D Minnie Kim Masoud Yeganegi, M.A.Sc. Manager, Science & Technology Strategy Program Administrator Institute of Biomaterials and Biomedical Engineering, Mt. Natural Resources Canada Centre for Research Education and Training, University Sinai Hospital, Health Network University of Toronto Ilia A. Tikhomirov Founder - OpenHive Global Associate Director of Science Eleanor Fast Development Platform YM Biosciences Inc. Program Director Council of Canadian Academies

CSPC 2010 Advisory Committee

The 2010 Canadian Science Policy Conference is pleased to have a National Advisory Committee made up of prominent members of the Science Policy community. They are:

Andre Albinati Kamiel Gabriel, Ph.D Rees Kassen, Ph.D Principal, Earnscliffe strategy group Founding Associate Provost, Research & Chair, Partnership Group for Science and Graduate Studies and Professor Engineering (PAGSE) Éric Archambault, Ph.D Faculty of Engineering & Applied Science President, Science-Metrix University of Ontario Institute of Technology Axel Meisen, Ph.D President, Canadian Academy of Engineering Graham Bell, Ph.D Yves Gingras, Ph.D President, Academy of Science Professeur, Département d’histoire Centre Jorge Niosi, Ph.D Royal Society of Canada interuniversitaire de recherche sur la science et Canada Research Chair in Management of la technologie Technology Elana Brief, Ph.D Chaire de recherche du Canada en histoire et Université du Québec à Montréal President, sociologie des sciences Society for Canadian Women in Science and UQAM Anita Dey Nuttall, Ph.D Technology Faculty Services Officer and Associate Director Ursula Gobel (Research Advancement) Natalie Dakers Director, Communications Canadian Circumpolar Institute Chief Executive Officer Social Sciences and Humanities Research Centre for Drug Research and Development Council of Canada Christopher Paige, Ph.D Vice-President, Research Josée Nadia Drouin Peter Hackett, Ph.D University Health Network Directrice, Agence Science-Presse Fellow, National Institute for Nanotechnology Executive Professor, School of Business Peter Singer, MD, FRSC Paul Dufour University of Alberta CEO, Grand Challenges Canada Principal, Paulicy Works J. Adam Holbrook, PEng. Christine Fitzgerald Adjunct Professor and Associate Director Executive Vice-President Centre for Policy Research on Science and Canadian Institutes for Health Research Technology, Simon Fraser University

! CSPC 2010 Honorary Committee

The 2010 Canadian Science Policy Conference is pleased to have a National Honorary Committee made up of prominent members of the Science Policy community. They are:

Alain Beaudet MD, Ph.D Roderick A. MacDonald President, Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR) President, Royal Society of Canada

Peter Brenders Preston Manning Chief Executive Officer, BIOTECanada Founder, Manning Centre for Building Democracy

Suzanne Fortier, Ph.D John R. McDougall President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of President, National Research Council of Canada Canada Heather Munroe-Blum, Ph.D Chad Gaffield, Ph.D Principal and Vice-Chancellor, McGill University President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) Pierre Noreau, Ph.D President, Association francophone pour le savoir Chaviva Ho!ek, Ph.D President and Chief Executive Officer, Canadian Institute for Eliot Phillipson MD Advanced Research Former President, Canada Foundation for Innovation

Yves Joanette, Ph.D Geneviève Tanguay, Ph.D President, Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec ADM, Ministère du Développement économique, de l’Innovation et de l’Exportation Mark Lievonen President, Sanofi Pasteur Judith Woodsworth, Ph.D President, Concordia University

! CSPC 2010 Volunteers

The organizing committee would like to offer special thanks to our many excellent and dedicated volunteers. Without you, this event would not have been possible.

Alice Park Jai Sharma Monali Ray

Alison Lee Janet Leclair Odile Nelly Lagacé

Andres Rojas Jason Singh Mukhi Rohan Deogaonkar

Andrew Kapoor Jennifer Liauw Sanja Beca

Angela Joyce Chan Johnny Guan Sheri Skerget

Antoinette Bugyei-Twum Julie Symes Shirley Yung

Caitlin Doherty Katie Harris Sina Zere

Cecile Perrault Khadija Ismail Steven Boyajian

Christina Melon Kumar Perampaladas Stephen Pankratz

Elena Kuzmin Ludwika Juchniewicz Tim Meyer

Elizabeth Logan Manal Siddiqui Yuhui Xu

Ellie Louson Mandy Lo

Harini Ramakrishnan Mariya Yurchenko

Ihor Babiak Michelle Wang

Jackson Feng Mona Yeganegi

! CSPC 2010 Community Partners

The following Organizations represent members of the Science Policy community that have supported CSPC 2010 in a variety of ways. Without their contributions and support this event would not be possible. On behalf of all stakeholders involved with this important event, we thank you!

ACFAS (Association francophone pour Fonds de la recherche en santé du Natural Resources Canada le savoir) Québec

Quebec Développement économique, de Agence science press Health Canada l’Innovation et de l’Exportation

Agriculture and Agrifood Canada Indian and Northern Affairs Canada The Review of Policy Research, Policy Studies Organization

Defence, Research & Development Industry Canada Transport Canada

Economic Development Corporation of MaRS British Columbia Université de Montréal

Ministry of Research and Innovation, Ontario

National Research Council

! CSPC 2010 proceedings booklet and video recording produced by !xiomatic Solutions

We look forward to see you at

CSPC 2011

Nov 16-18 Ottawa, Ontario!