CSPC2016

Organized by Jeffrey Kinder / Silke Nebel / Patrick Feng

What is Science Policy? Always wondered but were too afraid to ask? Think you have all the answers? Then this workshop is for you. Together we will break down ways to think about the influence of science on the policy-making process, and concepts for how policy can influence the scientific research enterprise.

You will gain an understanding of how science policy works by getting to know the policy toolkit (your nuts and bolts!) and by exploring the positions and competing interests of the stakeholders in a real-life case study. We will finish with a career panel consisting of professionals who ended up in science policy through very different avenues.

We welcome curious thinkers from all background, whether in sciences, engineering, public policy, business, communications, arts or something else entirely. If you have interest in science policy, this workshop is the place for you to share and expand your knowledge, build skills, and meet interesting people in the world of science policy.   

Workshop Agenda

8:00-8:15 - Introduction and Icebreaker
8:15-9:45 - Integration of Science and Policy (Jeff Kinder)
9:45 - 10:00 - Bio break
10:00 - 12:00 - Interactive exercise  - How to minimize carbon emissions of the boreal forest (Silke Nebel)
12:00 - 1:00 - Lunch
1:00 -2:00 -Interactive exercise - Communicating Science into Policy (Patrick Feng)
2:00 - 3:00  - Career panel (Jeff Kinder, Silke Nebel, Kori St-Cyr)

Organized by Canadian Space Commerce Association

Adequate policy is a vital part of the Canadian space economy enabling participants the ability to engage, cooperate locally and internationally, while nurturing new space entrants into a growing and competitive market.  Additionally, a policy allows for the managing of new needs involving disruptive and evolving technologies, while providing a framework to meet new challenges and different types of clients requiring bespoke business relationships.

To face these newly emerging paradigms with adequate space policy is also critical to Canada’s success on an international landscape. Yet Canada’s space policy must align with its national and parallel policies, which support, and are complimentary to, the sector. The Government of Canada has committed to a new Innovation Agenda, which will provide positive economic growth, technological opportunity and contributions on an international scale. The Canadian Space Policy Symposium will provide a variety of stakeholders, from the Canadian space community, the opportunity to be included in this collaborative discussion and contribute to shaping the emerging Innovation Agenda, which will contribute to Canada’s long-term space strategy.

Agenda
7:00 am - 8:00 am - Registration begins and breakfast

8:00 am - 8:05 am - Welcome / Introduction
Michelle Mendes, CEO, CSCA

8:10 am - 8:40 amOpening keynoteMr. Sylvain Laporte, President Canadian Space Agency

8:45 am - 9:35 am - Session 1 PLENARY: Space Policy & the Canadian Innovation
Agenda
Madam Sharon Irwin, Dr. Iain Christie,Dr. Christopher Herd

9:35 am - 9:55 am - Morning Break

10:00 am - 10:50 am - Session 2A: PANEL: Creating a Thriving Ecosystem for Commercial Space – Funding & Finance Focus
Moderator: Dr. Christian Sallaberger, Alex MacDonald, Christopher Baird, Hassan Kahn

10:55 am - 11:45 am - Session 2B: PANEL: Creating a Thriving Ecosystem for Commercial Space – Start Up, Accelerator and SME Focus
Moderator: Adam Keith, Jefferey Osborne, Dr. Christian Sallaberger, James Slifierz

11:45 am - 12:15 pm - LUNCH

12:15 pm – 1:05 pm - Session 3: PANEL: Achieving Excellence in Innovation Through Academics
Moderator: Dr. Gordon Osinski
Dr. Mike Daly, Prof. Christopher Herd, Prof. Rene Doyon, Prof. David Naylor

1:10 pm – 2:00 pm - Session 4 PANEL: Leading Critical Technologies
Moderator: Ms. Charity Weeden
Phillip Miller, Mr. Dan King, Prof. Robert Zee, Mr. Prashant Shukle

2:05 pm – 2:20 pm - Closing Recommendations

2:25 pm – 3:00 pm - Closing Keynote
Dr. Lucy Stojak

3:00 pm - Closing remarks -
Michelle Mendes

3:10 pm - End of Symposium - Closing Refreshments

• What steps should Canada take to build capacity in science diplomacy so Canadian scientific excellence can be positively projected in the global arena?  
• How can Canada best combine its strength in scientific excellence with an already established reputation of nation building/peace-making?
• What is Canada’s footprint in international collaborative projects in science and technology projects and how can it be improved?
• What is Canada’s contribution to major international challenges where the solution lies in science and technology and how Canada can boost its engagement?
• What are the current global trends and international practices in science diplomacy and what can Canada learn from them?

Organized by Friends of CIHR

Early career scientists refers to researchers within 5 to 10 years of independent employment, usually within university or hospital-based institutes.  This echelon of scientists, who are approaching their most creative phase of independent research, has not fared well in recent years in grant competitions and salary support because of flat-line budgets and resource re-allocations.  They have suffered doubly because funding agencies have favoured program-based research initiatives that are dominated by established scientists or groups of scientists.  This situation going forward imperils discovery and translation and crimps the pipeline of human resource development.  Unfortunately, a climate of despair prevails amongst early phase trainees and independent scientists, who work in smaller groups and feel that the current policies are stacked against them.  A related issue appears to be the proliferation of under-resourced new programs that require re-distribution of limited funds away from investigator-driven research. 

This Roundtable brings together young and experienced scientists, academic leaders and visionaries, as well as leaders in training programs to address some of the issues, and at the same time, offer some potential solutions for further consideration.  There is considerable support for the notion that greater participation of early career scientists in developing policies would enhance and propel their careers in a positive trajectory that would enhance Canada’s leadership in health research.

Agenda 

1 pm - Call to Order 

1:03 pm - Introductions & Welcoming RemarksDr. Aubie Angel, Dr. Catharine Whiteside, Mr. Paul Davidson, The Honourable Dr. Reza Moridi

1:15 pm - 1:20 pm Keynote Comment:Dr. Bruce McManus

1:20 pm - 2:15 pm Presentations:Dr. Michael Hendricks, Dr. Morley Hollenberg, Dr. Grant PierceDr. Reinhart Reithmeier, Dr. Norman D. Rosenblum, Dr. Danika Goosney, Dr. Holly Witteman, Dr. Jim Woodgett

2:15 pm - 3:00 pm Comments & DiscussionDr. Janet Rossant, Dr. Henry G. Friesen, Dr. Mehrdad Hariri  

3 pm - Adjourn

Organized by the Environmental Information: Use and Influence (EIUI) research program (www.eiui.ca), School of Information Management, Dalhousie University.

Numerous advisory groups in Canada have historically discussed mechanisms by which information can be provided to support public policy and decision-making. Yet, the scientific community continues to raise concerns about an apparent disregard for scientific information by decision-makers. Although many environmental problems have been identified, they are not currently being adequately addressed. In particular, problems facing the oceans are serious and often present unforeseen complications. Given these environmental concerns, the growing volume of scientific information, and the complexity of decision-making, including the influence of politics, the need to understand information pathways – production, communication, and use of information – cannot be overstated. It is also useful to consider the case of public science organizations, i.e., research units of government, given the current federal government’s expressed commitment to science-based decisions. Public science organizations can provide the broader scientific community with a key interface for connecting science to government decisions.

This panel, comprised of members of the Environmental Information: Use and Influence (EIUI) research program at Dalhousie University and a staff member of Natural Resources Canada, will discuss the complex processes that characterize how information moves from scientists to decision-makers at the science-policy interface. Funded by SSHRC and governmental bodies, EIUI has conducted empirical studies of information use in marine environmental decision-making in national, regional, and international governmental organizations. These studies have revealed that access to and use of information are dependent on multiple, context-specific factors. For example, the movement of information between scientific and policy groups can follow numerous formal and informal pathways linking a variety of actors in networks of policy- and decision-making at all levels of government. Furthermore, decision-making involves diverse audiences, including stakeholders and individuals outside of government and established networks, with unique information management behaviours. Understanding the structure and objectives of known decision-making processes that are based on a scientific understanding of natural and human environments, is a precondition for new, hypothesis-driven research (typical of discovery research) to encourage decisions that align with policy objectives.

Drawing on approaches in information management, marine science, marine policy, and public administration, the panelists will discuss the intricacies of the science-policy interface(s). The panel will address the following questions:

• What critical enablers and barriers affect the use of marine environmental information?
• Given the growing volume of scientific (natural and social) knowledge, how do decision makers identify and select relevant information?
• Given the growing number of communication methods, what role(s) do particular information pathways, such as social networks, play in marine environmental decision making?
• Given the federal government’s expressed commitment to science, how can federal science organizations best advance the inclusion of science in decision-making?

These questions are especially relevant given continuing austerity measures, the growing demand for transparency in decision-making, and global attention on addressing communication challenges at the science-policy interface. The results of these empirical studies have been received with considerable interest by governmental scientists and managers as they seek solutions that will ensure that the information is used appropriately by decision-makers.

• In the global response to the Ebola crisis and more generally in supporting the WHO in its pandemic influenza preparedness;
• In supporting the International Space Station's capabilities with Canadian robotics such as the Canadarm, to give us valuable access to the ISS;
• In providing the secretariat for more than a decade the Global Health Security Initiative of the G7 countries plus Mexico;
• In participating actively in the Global Health Security Agenda that is becoming increasingly important in health security considerations in the face of global threats; and,
• In biological, atmospheric and hydrographic missions in the Arctic that have supported Canadian national sovereignty.

Organized by: SSHRC, CIHR, NSERC, Genome Canada

There is wide consensus that innovation takes place in a highly complex ecosystem. For example, the science and know-how behind drug discovery has become so complex that it cannot be contained within the confines of a single sector. In fact, drug discovery and development occurs in a complex ecosystem where the public university sector, biotech companies, big pharma, foundations, disease advocacy groups and citizens all come together. Most often, we don’t have an accurate map of all the players in the system. Fundamental science lays the foundation for novel applications and disruptive innovations which can only flourish in a multi-disciplinary, multi-sectoral and multi-cultural ecosystem. This results in a complex, rapidly evolving dynamic interplay between a wide array of stakeholders all active in the discovery and innovation space.

 For innovation to be successful, contributions from all fields of knowledge are required, whether it’s natural sciences and engineering, health, or social sciences and humanities. Social sciences and humanities, in particular, bring the expertise necessary for understanding human behaviours, market trends and societal values, without which in particular disruptive technologies cannot be successfully adopted in the new marketplace.

 With the announcement of the federal fundamental science review and the launch of the consultation on the Innovation Agenda, a better understanding of this dynamic interplay between discovery and innovation, and the implications for policy development requires new, broader perspectives from across disciplines, geographies and sectors of the economy and society.

 We are proposing a panel that would bring together players from across this complex innovation ecosystem to discuss how we can break down barriers and build bridges across sectors in order to position Canada to better respond to the social and economic challenges and opportunities of the 21st century. The panel will explore new models of collaboration between industry and the post-secondary research sector, taking into account the variety of actors that must be involved in order to be truly successful at innovation. 

• A senior representative from the Oil and Gas sector (energy stakeholder perspective)• A senior representative from the electricity and/or renewal energy sector (energy stakeholder perspective)
• A senior representative from Thomson Reuters (broad energy sector perspective)
• A leading academic and/or think tank representative (policy making perspective)
• A leading provincial and/or federal government policy representative (policy making perspective)

Organized by: Renata Osika

The dynamics of Canada’s research and innovation system bring together a diverse range of stakeholders. Some may argue that there is no one Innovation System. After all research and innovation happen within local communities. Thus the innovation landscape and the specific priorities vary significantly across the provinces. The stakeholders take on different roles.

Over the past decade provinces have taken on a more significant role in research funding. Most have established research founding organizations with a mandate of leading this dialogue in their jurisdiction. Yet in Canada understanding of the regional systems, their own complexities and the ongoing transformations continues to be weak. This panel will elaborate on what drives the complexity of innovation systems overall, and illustrate the diverse of funding mechanism used to support these systems. They will hare insights from their own experience of building provincial research and innovation ecosystem.

We encourage everyone to attend this session and present recommendations and be part of the capacity building in Science Policy in Canada. 

1. Should Canada expand fossil fuel extraction and transport infrastructure? (such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) plants, oil pipelines, shale gas plays, etc)
2. Is there a best way to do emissions pricing? (carbon tax vs. cap-and-trade, permit auctions vs. free distribution, protection for trade-exposed industries, linkage to other jurisdictions, carbon tax revenue recycling like BC or spend it like Ontario, etc.)
3. What is the role of the federal government vs. the provinces in meeting the Paris commitment? (especially given the diversity of effort and policy challenges and opportunities among the provinces) 
4. What is the role for other levels of government? (municipal, territorial, First Nations)
5. What are the pros and cons of different key technology options? (nuclear, biofuels, carbon capture and storage, intermittent renewables like solar and wind, electric cars, heat pumps, energy efficiency, a trans-national grid, shale gas, etc.)

Evidence-based decision-making (EBDM) is not new to healthcare; stakeholders are well aware of the promise it holds.  But while there are excellent examples of successful EBDM, its influence on policy at the system level is far from realized.   Why, despite volumes of literature on barriers to EBDM – and solutions to overcome them – do we struggle?   How can we embrace EBDM to help sustain and strengthen our Canadian and provincial healthcare systems?

One promising initiative is Canada’s Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR), a $650M+ coalition of federal, provincial and territorial partners led by Canadian Institutes of Health Research, dedicated to the integration of research into care. 

Under SPOR, SUPPORT Units (Support for People and Patient-Oriented Research and Trials) have been established across Canada to strengthen patient-oriented research.  The Units’ resources and services are critical supports for EBDM.  But the real key to SPOR and the Units’ success is in looking beyond these practical offerings to the social and structural elements that prevent or enable EBDM.  SUPPORT Units have committed to a new and equal partnership among patients, researchers, practitioners, and policy-makers to ensure these elements are addressed.

Success means establishing shared goals and measurements and supporting people to play new roles. But it also means tackling issues of power, politics, conflicting incentives and different rules (real or perceived) by which various stakeholders operate.  Such issues are largely ignored:  they are either too difficult to deal with, or they are so entrenched, we don’t recognize them as problems.  SPOR presents an opportunity to resolve them.

This provocative panel represents three SUPPORT Units: Ontario, Alberta and BC. Three case studies on EDBM will be presented, each by a Unit lead and a partner (policy-maker, researcher, patient).  Cases will address practical elements of EBDM (skills, training, access to evidence) – but also the social and structural. What rules and incentives must change for EBDM to work?  How can we move from a culture of competition – which is research today – to one of collaboration, and what are the trade-offs? How can patients have equal power as decision makers?  How do we measure progress, with the current demand for quick fixes and quantitative results? How can our definition of science expand to include the disciplines of change management, organizational culture and system change?

Organized jointly by:
Professor Rees Kassen & Professor Jeremy Kerr, University of Ottawa

The Canadian research and training ecosystem has grown in size and impact over the past two decades. We punch above our weight internationally in many fields. Yet gaps hold us back from sustained international leadership and new ones are on the horizon.  The landscape of investment in discovery-based research has fractured into intellectual silos that diminish prospects for meaningful collaboration; sustaining and growing linkages between industry and academe have not reversed Canada’s slide in many metrics of research excellence. Training the next generation of researchers, with the transformative economic potential they bring, is impossible without recognizing, embracing, and adapting to shifting research paradigms. For example, citizen and DIY science is too often seen as a threat to establishments and institutions, not opportunities for rapid evolution, international support for research and training remain is sporadic and transitory, and the doors between industry and academe need to be jammed open.  How can the Canadian research and training ecosystem, including universities themselves, change to address new demands of a more mobile, integrated, and complex world? This discussion comes in advance of the Fundamental Science Review and synthesis of Canada’s Innovation Agenda. We focus on specific examples of success from Canada’s research community.  The panel's composition is strategic – speakers represent a spectrum of R&D activities and are emerging as leaders of a diverse Canadian research landscape.  These researchers represent a broad community that is vitally invested in evolution within the research ecosystem; they will thrive or fail as a result, as will Canada.  

Convergence is the combination of insights and approaches from originally distinct fields. Researchers trained at the nexus of converging disciplines are developing unique perspectives that stimulate the emergence of new areas of research. By promoting a diversity of approaches that transcend the traditional discipline barriers, convergence has the potential to nurture innovative solutions to both new and persistent challenges.

Cutting-edge research, and the innovation that comes from it, increasingly depends on developing original ways to stimulate discoveries. For example, many modern developments in drug delivery would not have been possible without an integrated transdisciplinary approach combining fields such as nanotechnology and pharmaceutical research. The convergence revolution is also creating major new opportunities in neuroscience, integrating methodologies adopted from a variety of STEM disciplines including the life, physical and engineering sciences. This same dynamic is taking place in a wide variety of fields, such as the convergence of psychology and economics, computer science and astronomy, digital technologies and the humanities, chemistry, biology and engineering, etc.

This session aims to:

• Identify opportunities and barriers to the convergence of disciplines and fields of  research,
• Discuss strategies that could be developed to enable the potential of convergence,
• Debate the possibility of developing and implementing new strategies and organizational structures that could improve the effectiveness of the Canadian research enterprise.

Organized by Ontario Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science

According to a recent OECD report (Oct 2015) countries should step up their investment in long-term R&D to develop frontier technologies that will reshape industry, healthcare and communications and provide urgently needed solutions to global challenges. Disruptive technologies, including mobile, autonomous vehicles, artificial intelligence and advanced genomics have the potential to significantly change the way we live and work. This session is meant to provoke reflection on a timely issue. We propose a series of short ‘lightning-talk’ speakers and then open the floor for discussion.

This panel seeks to further explore the following issues:

• How should funding agencies/governments strike a balance between already emerging areas of disruptive technologies research and new unexplored areas?
• Should support for disruptive technologies be prioritised on the basis of the promise it holds?
• Does government need to have in place pre-emptive policies and regulatory mechanisms in anticipation of increased volume in disruptive technology research? Should research in disruptive technologies be undertaken with a parallel assessment of its ethical, socio-economic, and cultural implications?

A critical communication gap exists between the research community and the Public, around the world. The Public is not sufficiently informed about research outcomes, except for the little they can glean through popular media. Researchers typically publish their outcomes in channels such as journals and conferences, which are meant for fellow researchers. Unfortunately, neither popular media nor journals and conference publications capture the details of the research processes that could engage the Public. The Public, as the receptor sector, rarely participates in the research cycle when researchers propose ideas, apply for funding, investigate ideas through various processes, reach outcomes, and drive new research directions. Thus, one could conclude that contemporary research practices unintentionally and unreasonably marginalize social awareness of the Public in research matters. This oversight is particularly noteworthy for research sponsored by public funds.

Certain data indicates that the Public wants to be involved in research. For example, in a recent report on the Public’s attitude towards research [http://v-a.se/downloads/varapport2015_6_eng.pdf], 90 per cent of the sample population supported public involvement, while public trust in university researchers fluctuated between 60 and 90 per cent. This strongly suggests that a significant majority of the public want to understand, question, utilize, influence, and engage in research processes, especially for publicly funded research. Consequently, a compelling justification and opportunity for developing a culture of open research unveils.

An open research culture offers many benefits. A Public that has access to research processes will be empowered in many ways. For example, people can engage in informed discussions on science -- drawing from direct involvement in evidence-based research, rather than relying on cultural beliefs, blind trust, basic intuition and media representations [https://www.upf.edu/pcstacademy/_docs/155.pdf].

For many nations, expanding the number of active researchers is a goal, especially as the ratio of the number of researchers to research spending remains highly unsatisfactory [http://data.uis.unesco.org]. Awareness of research processes will also help the Public understand certain data, such as why the top 96 Canadian researchers [http://www.stic-csti.ca/eic/site/stic-csti.nsf/eng/00088.html] are among the top 1% researchers in the world. Once initiated, this involvement could spark greater interest, motivating the public to get involved on a more fundamental and academic level.

Open Data [http://globalopendatainitiative.org/; http://open.canada.ca/en/open-data] allows for transparent sharing of information. Open Science [https://english.eu2016.nl/latest/news/2016/04/05/eu-action-plan-for-open-science; http://cos.io] supports integrity and growth in science research. Open Research allows for transparency in research processes, under the investigative scrutiny of the Public. The Public can raise questions about validity and applicability, as well as audit studies for quality, and test for replicability, using open datasets.

Important and necessary marketplace and regulatory policies could help improve the Public’s attitude towards research. Greater integrity could spark healthier private sector competition and more investment in research -- facilitating R&D by business enterprises and countering concerning observations, such as those of a recent benchmark report [http://www.stic-csti.ca/eic/site/stic-csti.nsf/eng/00088.html] on business R&D expenditures as a share of GDP.

As an extension of the "Open Government" initiative of the Government of Canada (http://open.gc.ca), this panel will deliberate the need for open research including citizen engagement, the standards for open research, and the proposed policy to guide researchers to adhere to open research standards.

Organized by: Consortia Advancing Standards in Research Administration

Are we optimizing our investment in publicly funded research? We have a strong and dynamic academic research ecosystem and there is much to celebrate – both in terms of funding structures and researchperformance. But research productivity and effectiveness is being compromised by undue administrative burden on researchers and research institutions. This CSPC session will focus on identifying constructive and feasible ways to ways to reduce admin burden without compromising quality and accountability of the research system.  

It is only since the 1960s that there has been a major thrust among post-secondary education (PSE) institutions to embrace research as a core value. Subsequently and until today, the PSE research environment in Canada has been dynamic, with massive changes in i) the number of researchers and the quality of academic research, ii) the number and diversity of post-secondary education (PSE) institutions active in research, iii) the global context, iv) the level of public funding for PSE research, v) public expectations of the societal benefit from that research, and vi) the nature of knowledge production and dissemination. The research system is increasingly complex and multi-layered; it is by no means broken, but it is under stress. The time is ripe for a system-wide reassessment and adjustment.

 [KS1]The website only lists David Baker, but I know him and Janet are from CASRAI

Organized by: NAPHRO and Canadian Science Publishing

The outputs of scientific research should be applied to inform the choices available to policy decision-makers, yet many barriers prevent the adoption of science into the policy development process. While much has been done to identify the issues contributing to the broken links between science and policy, the time is now for actionable science communication strategies that support evidence-based decision making. Recognizing the various stakeholder groups within the science communication ecosystem – scientists producing and publishing research, publishers vetting and disseminating the results, policy-makers applying scientific knowledge to inform decisions, the media delivering scientific news, and the public making everyday choices – targeted communication approaches and strategies are required.

This panel, representing various stakeholder groups, will demonstrate how scientists and policy decision-makers can work together to fully integrate evidence-based decision making into the Canadian policy landscape.  

Canada’s coastal communities face unique challenges in addressing climate change including sea-level rise, erosion and storm surges that are increasing in severity and frequency.  These communities are increasingly in need of adaptation measures to strengthen their long term resilience.  However, in most cases adaptation measures need to be tailored to the specific needs of individual communities, which can vary greatly even within the same geographic region.  This begs the question: how can federal, provincial/territorial and regional organizations best support coastal climate change adaptation at a local level?  In addition, how can successful adaptation measures in an individual community be scaled up, so similar communities can learn from and/or implement the measures?  This panel will advance a discussion on how to ensure the rapid sharing of relevant knowledge and evidence across Canada to bolster the ability of coastal communities to adapt to a changing climate.

Organized by Russel MacDonald and Dr. Alidad Amirfazli

The traditional approach of fostering innovation in Canada through academia and through industry needs updating. We need to seriously consider and support new ways of discovery and innovation in Canada. In this panel discussion the focus will be on driving industry and academia closer together. The session will provide perspectives on how to incentivize each party to work closer and leverage expertise. The issues of culture shift and obstacles and opportunities for forging closer relationships between academia and industry will be discussed.

The Royal Society of Canada’s College of New Scholars, Artists and Scientists is the first national system of multidisciplinary recognition for the emerging generation of Canadian intellectual leadership, and it is this emerging demographic that will be responsible for the future of Canadian innovation. The College will draw upon these leaders to bring forward a discussion about the role that must be played together by universities, industry, and policy makers.