The following topics are covered within the Science and Policy Theme

  • What constitutes evidence and whose evidence counts

  • Traditional knowledge and policy making

  • Case studies of science informing policy

  • Open science and its impact on policy for science

  • Policy making and new scientific and technological advances: e.g. CRISPR, Synthetic Biology, AI

  • Changing configurations of science funding mechanisms – opportunities and challenges

  • Federal provincial coordination in policy making for science and innovation

  • New frontiers of science: Interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary and convergence science

conference panel

Conference Day: Day 2 – November 14th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Global Relationships in an Innovation Economy: Capitalizing on Canada’s Strengths in Collaboration and Partnership

Organized by: Ryerson University, Office of Vice President Research and Innovation

Speakers: Patricia Gruver-Barr, Research & Innovation Attaché, Québec Government Office in Boston; Lissa Matyas, VP International Partnerships, Mitacs; Daniel Dufour, Director General, Science Policy Branch Innovation, Science and Economic Development (now Innovation, Science and Industry); Emmanuel Kamarianakis, Director General, Innovation, Investment & Education, Global Affairs Canada; Roger Scott-Douglas, Secretary General, National Research Council of Canada.

Moderator: Steven Liss, Vice President Research and Innovation, Ryerson University

Takeaways:

  1. There is a critical public policy role in identifying science-based/evidence-based solutions for major public policy challenges to advance science and technology knowledge and help small- and medium-sized enterprises grow.
  2. A Team Canada approach to international engagement will only be achieved through greater collaboration and coordination.
  3. Creating connectivity across the innovation ecosystem is necessary for integrating a vision of science with the federal Innovation and Skills Plan.
  4. Canada lacks a science and technology roadmap for its international agenda to allow the country to punch above its weight.
  5. Access to markets is critical for Canadian companies that are often collaborating with firms in much larger countries.
  6. Utilizing publicly supported internships to lower the barriers and risks of doing R&D is an effective way to help smaller firms that lack the resources to undertake in-house R&D.
  7. The federal government is aiming to double the number of high-growth companies in Canada, particularly in the digital, clean technology and health technology sectors, from 14,000 to 28,000 by 2025.

A “Team Canada” approach among options to boost international S&T 

The federal and Quebec governments are working on several fronts to strengthen international research at a time when global collaborations are more vital than ever in addressing complex global challenges.

This CSPC panel assembled experts from government and academia to explore the actions and cultural adjustments required to boost global relationships in R&D and innovation. Canada has long participated in bilateral and multilateral R&D activities involving a range of academic, institutional, government and corporate players. With a vibrant financing ecosystem generating a healthy balance between corporate and public investments, there have been significant successes over the years. Yet the research and innovation ecosystem is experiencing rapid change, challenging Canadian actors to up their game.

In this era of technological disruption, panel moderator, Dr. Steven Liss noted that, while Canada is struggling to scale, great strides have been made coordinating and positioning our research strengths, opening the way for greater impact.

“Has Canada officially pivoted in our approach in the global and dynamic innovation economy including our approach to trade and relationships that support S&T and bilateral relationships? How can we harness this constellation of activity in a more coordinated and strategic way?” asked Liss. “We must work differently to establish new types of relationships, which include co-competition, reducing silos to work horizontally, intensifying international partnerships on the basis of geopolitical challenges and recognizing the value of intersections where innovation occurs.”

The National Research Council is Canada’s largest federal science organization and one the country’s most sought after collaborators internationally. With its industrial arm – the Industrial Research Assistance Program – and world-renowned laboratories, it collaborates internationally with 34 countries.

It recently deployed an international engagement strategy with a strong focus on Germany, Japan and the U.K.  According to Roger Scott-Douglas, the NRC takes care to understand the rules by which other countries play, including rule of law, intellectual property and the desire to collaborate.

“The best broad relationships start with individual relationships. Bottom-up is best,” said Scott-Douglas, the NRC’s Secretary General. “We focus on our competitive advantages. It’s not the time to learn and grow. You have to go in with your best game.”

For international relationships to succeed in generating innovation and productivity growth, Scott-Douglas said countries must be adept at transferring knowledge from academia to industry, adding that the U.S. and Japan “are exponentially better at it”.

Nurturing young talent

Mitacs has a key niche role to play in enhancing international collaboration, linking with other players in the Canadian ecosystem to nurture young talent.

Lissa Matyas, VP International Partnerships at Mitacs, said a landscape analysis of the international strategies developed by Canadian universities would help her organization to build large-scale relationships and coordinate science diplomacy. An informal group could start a dialogue with federal departments, the Chief Science Advisor and the granting councils to determine which countries, regions and sectors should be prioritized and collaborations established, she added.

Mitacs “works with Global Affairs Canada and Innovation, Science and Economic Development (now Innovation, Science and Industry) to target countries that will be strategic for Canada in terms of our research priorities and other strategic initiatives we would like to grow into world hubs of expertise,” said Matyas. “The thing I find remarkable is, now that we are adopting a Team Canada approach, we are really getting noticed and able to build much deeper relationships with priority countries. Silicon Valley, Germany and Israel have traditionally been the hubs to visit. But now government delegations are also coming to Canada and looking at what we’re doing in terms of innovation as a leader in bringing government, industry and academic players together to drive innovation in the country… International research collaborations are not-a-one-size- fits-all approach and as Team Canada we are starting to customize our partnerships with various countries to create win-win economic and social development outcomes.”

The Department of Innovation, Science and Industry plays a central role in international S&T funding and coordination and is working to ensure that all players contribute  to the strategic development of global relationships and markets.

Daniel Dufour said Canada has made significant improvements to aligning priorities but that more needs to be done “to get our house in order internally”

“What we’ve done fairly well is that most of the different pieces of the system have been articulated for their international approach, which wasn’t the case that many years ago in terms of international engagement,” said Dufour. “The broader discussion now is how we go to the next phase in terms of having better integration across the system. We need to be strategic. Scale is important. We’re a very small economy so need a Team Canada approach on international engagement.”

Partnering with sub-national governments

Beyond nation-to-nation collaboration, innovation actors such as the Quebec government are engaging in sub-national diplomacy and collaboration at the state or even municipal levels.

Patricia Gruver-Barr, the Research & Innovation Attaché for Quebec in Boston, said her the province is targeting sub-national jurisdictions in areas such as genomics and ocean and life sciences, while her Boston-based consulate is using this bottom-up approach  to leverage provincial strengths in artificial intelligence (AI).

At the same time, there’s extensive interaction between Quebec and the federal government, helping to develop national strategic direction.

“We’ve been working recently on building an initiative between Montreal, Boston and Pittsburgh called the AI Triangle. It’s a new exercise … to build relationships for our startups such as helping a startup in Montreal find mentors or peers in U.S., who can guide you through that landscape and vice versa,” said Gruver-Barr.

“The second part of the AI Triangle is an ethical framework for the three cities (and) using the Montreal Declaration for AI as an example … The third part is … retaining and training new AI and data scientists, working at the university level, developing fellowships so students can travel between three cities,” she added.

For Global Affairs Canada (GAC), the surge in international activity, combined with new fiscal resources from recent federal budgets, offers an enticing opportunity to help companies scale to a size where they can prosper in the global arena. Services offered through GAC’s Community Technology Accelerators program include access to capital and promotion of intellectual property, use of its trade commissioner service, and other mechanisms to assist small firms globally.

“We’re also going to identify and work with high-potential companies to accelerate their internationalization,” said Emmanuel Kamarianakis, Director General, Innovation, Investment & Education at GAC. “We are also going to be ambitiously promoting Canadian students to the world and seeking to diversify our base of international students coming into Canada as well as promoting Canadian students going abroad for international experience. We will be launching a program at start of next academic year, in September 2020, to get up to 11,000 Canadian college and university undergraduate students studying abroad.”

conference panel

Conference Day: Day 3 – November 15th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Mapping Dynamic Research Ecosystems: Tapping into New Indicators, Big Data, and Emerging Technologies

Organized by: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

Speakers: Elizabeth Boston, Director (Mathematical, Environmental and Physical Sciences), Research Grants and Scholarships Directorate of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada; Xiaodan Zhu, Assistant Professor of the Ingenuity Labs and Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Queen’s University; Adam Bradley, Research Scientist, Visualization for Information Analysis Lab (Vialab), Ontario Tech University; Stefanie Haustein, Assistant Professor, University of Ottawa, School of Information Studies

Moderator: Eric M. Meslin, President and CEO, Council of Canadian Academies

Takeaways:

  1. Setting research funding priorities is complex. Past practices involved consultation and expert input. There are many questions around best practices: e.g., should we fund weaknesses or strengths?
  2. When evaluating researcher impact, common metrics that are used in traditional peer review are not informative enough for a meaningful assessment, and they can introduce bias: e.g., the h-index is biased against younger researchers and has shown to be inconsistent, and citations can be both positive and negative.
  3. Non-traditional research outputs and impact, such as teaching and social media impact, are generally not considered in traditional research evaluation.
  4. For each evaluation exercise you need to define very specifically what impact means.
  5. Natural language processing, machine learning, artificial intelligence, etc., can be used to decrease bias in assessments of research impact.
  6. Quantitative methods of assessments (i.e., bibliometrics) can have value for studies of population trends and comparisons but should be used to complement expert review, not replace it.
  7. There are many challenges in natural language processing, such as helping the computer to understand ambiguities in natural language, common sense, domain language, and reasoning in language. Work continues to push forward the frontier of these problems.
  8. If machine learning tools are ‘taught’ using biased data, the result will be biased. For instance, gender bias is inherent in many datasets. Expert input is needed to reflect on how the data are collected and prepared, and to evaluate the results.
  9. Data literacy is critical to understanding how data can and should be used. Through misleading analysis or visualization, different datasets can be summarized in a way that provides the same conclusions, and identical datasets can be made to show very different conclusions. If data can be manipulated to support any argument, then poor data literacy could have negative impacts on evidence-based policy- and decision-making.

conference panel

Conference Day: Day 1 – November 13th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Bringing the Social Sciences into New Policy Spaces: Solution-oriented Case Studies and Dialogue

Organized by: Office of the Chief Scientist, Natural Resources Canada with the Institute of Environment, University of Ottawa

Speakers: Elisabeth Gauthier, Research Director, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada; Chris McPhee, Innovation Management Specialist, Living Laboratories Initiative, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Brian Pentz, PhD Candidate, University of Toronto; Nathan Young, Professor of Sociology, University of Ottawa

Moderator: Vik Pant, Chief Scientist and Chief Science Advisor, Natural Resources Canada

Takeaways

  1. Many government priorities and mandates revolve around understanding and managing human behaviour, perception and social organization (e.g., public and community engagement, modifying or regulating behaviours, etc.). These priorities can be difficult to achieve with solely quantitative and “hard” science-based evidence and advice.
  2. Social scientists have advanced training in these areas, and can offer unique insights into challenges faced by governments, especially in science-based departments and organizations.
  3. For example, social scientists can help:
    1. Identify and frame appropriate and useful research questions,
    2. Help scientists understand how different perspectives are shaping public conversation,
    3. Suggest and implement appropriate research methodologies,
    4. Support and evaluate multi-stakeholder innovation processe
    5. Understand the barriers and incentives to adopting technologies and practices
    6. Facilitate organizational change in scientific domains
    7. Explore best approaches to engage communities in decision making processes, and
    8. Research and facilitate behavioural changes (e.g., how do we get people to build houses further from forests to reduce the risks associated with forest fires?)

Actions

  1. Social scientists should also be employed in government as scientists and researchers, not just as policymakers, especially in science-based departments and organizations (SBDAs). In the meantime, develop novel mechanisms of collaboration with external organizations (e.g., universities, NGOs) to address limited social sciences capacity in government organizations.
  2. Social science researchers should work in interdisciplinary teams to create integrated (i.e., qualitative and quantitative, “hard” and soft” science) research.
  3. For teams to be truly interdisciplinary, they need to start collaborating early in the research process and interact on a regular basis to build trust and understanding of each other’s roles.
  4. Social sciences research in government needs to be recognized as objective and non-political.
  5. Social scientists have to do a better job of communicating their work and its purpose to decision makers.

Elisabeth Gauthier

Conference Day: Day 2 – November 14th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Bringing the Social Sciences into New Policy Spaces: Solution-oriented Case Studies and Dialogue

Organized by: Office of the Chief Scientist, Natural Resources Canada with the Institute of Environment, University of Ottawa

Speakers: Elisabeth Gauthier, Research Director, Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada; Chris McPhee, Innovation Management Specialist, Living Laboratories Initiative, Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; Brian Pentz, PhD Candidate, University of Toronto; Nathan Young, Professor of Sociology, University of Ottawa

Moderator: Vik Pant, Chief Scientist and Chief Science Advisor, Natural Resources Canada

Takeaways

  1. Many government priorities and mandates revolve around understanding and managing human behaviour, perception and social organization (e.g., public and community engagement, modifying or regulating behaviours, etc.). These priorities can be difficult to achieve with solely quantitative and “hard” science-based evidence and advice.
  2. Social scientists have advanced training in these areas, and can offer unique insights into challenges faced by governments, especially in science-based departments and organizations.
  3. For example, social scientists can help:
    1. Identify and frame appropriate and useful research questions,
    2. Help scientists understand how different perspectives are shaping public conversation,
    3. Suggest and implement appropriate research methodologies,
    4. Support and evaluate multi-stakeholder innovation processe
    5. Understand the barriers and incentives to adopting technologies and practices
    6. Facilitate organizational change in scientific domains
    7. Explore best approaches to engage communities in decision making processes, and
    8. Research and facilitate behavioural changes (e.g., how do we get people to build houses further from forests to reduce the risks associated with forest fires?)

Actions

  1. Social scientists should also be employed in government as scientists and researchers, not just as policymakers, especially in science-based departments and organizations (SBDAs). In the meantime, develop novel mechanisms of collaboration with external organizations (e.g., universities, NGOs) to address limited social sciences capacity in government organizations.
  2. Social science researchers should work in interdisciplinary teams to create integrated (i.e., qualitative and quantitative, “hard” and soft” science) research.
  3. For teams to be truly interdisciplinary, they need to start collaborating early in the research process and interact on a regular basis to build trust and understanding of each other’s roles.
  4. Social sciences research in government needs to be recognized as objective and non-political.
  5. Social scientists have to do a better job of communicating their work and its purpose to decision makers.

conference panel conference speaker conference scientist

conference roundtable discussion

Conference Day: Day 2 – November 14th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

The Promise of Science and Its Implications for Science Policy: Perspectives of Canada’s STI [Science, Technology & Innovation] Community

Organizers: Amy Lemay, VISTA Science & Technology Inc.; Rob Annan, Genome Canada

Speakers: Sally Greenwood, Vice President, Communications and Societal Engagement, Genome BC; Rob Annan, VP Public Affairs and Communications, Genome Canada; Ivan Semeniuk, Science Journalist, Globe & Mail; Alice Cohen, Associate Professor, Department of Earth & Environmental Science, Acadia University

Moderator: Amy Lemay, Independent Science Advisor, Vista Science & Technology

Takeaways:

  1. In this session’s highly interactive “fishbowl” format, audience members came to the stage and confronted one another on a wide range of topics, while the original presenters became onlookers. This dynamic drew out a diversity of ideas around the concept of the “promise” of science that were not part of the initial presentations nor even anticipated by the session planners.
  2. Although scientific work is often cast as objective and neutral, the expectations attached to that work can vary widely, depending on factors such as age, race, gender, or geographic location.
  3. There can be an ongoing tension between policy and the scientific process, since the former is aimed at expediting the delivery of public goods while the latter is regularly conducted in an atmosphere of uncertainty around its outcome, with progress occurring at a much slower or intermittent pace.
  4. These wide-ranging expectations contribute to public trust of science, but they may not be fulfilled by the purely technical goals set by the planners of a research initiative. As such, observers may be disappointed by a scientist’s perceived success if the results fail to  address their specific interests.
  5. If the scientific process is not understood or conveyed in a way that reflects the values and aspirations of society, critics may challenge the nature of public investment in such activity.

Actions:

  1. Science that fails to live up to expectations can still represent significant progress. Global efforts to map the human genome, for example, did not yield the insights that had been anticipated but instead opened up the entirely unexpected field of epigenetics, an exciting field of medical progress.
  2. Public understanding of – and where possible public participation in – the scientific process should be cultivated to build public trust in science. These efforts can be facilitated by diversity and inclusion initiatives, so that more members of society perceive their personal principles to be part of the overall makeup of the scientific community.
  3. The process of research must be described and explained in ways that make it clear how even modest contributions lead to the incremental advances that move science forward. Such efforts would help to allay fears that Canadians are missing out if research conducted here does not make a direct contribution to our quality of life.
  4. The greatest value of scientific research may not be in its contribution to science itself, but rather the insight that it can afford to economic, political, or social areas of human endeavour.

conference room

conference panel speaking

Conference Day: Day 3 – November 15th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Fishing for Open Science Innovation — Should Canada Join cOAlition/Plan S?

Organizers: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)

Speakers: David Sweeney, Executive Chair, Research England; Angela Holzer, Programme Officer, Scientific Library Services and Information Systems, German Research Foundation; Monica Granados, Mitacs Canadian Science Policy Fellow; Policy Analyst at Environment and Climate Change Canada; Suzanne Kettley, Executive Director, Canadian Science Publishing

Dominique Roche, Postdoctoral Researcher, Fish Ecology and Conservation Physiology Lab, Carleton University; Guy Rouleau, Director, Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital

Moderator: Kevin Fitzgibbons, Executive Director, Corporate Planning and Policy, NSERC

Takeaways:

  1. Plan S — an open access publishing initiative launched by Science Europe in September 2018 and supported by a number of international research funders, and requiring that, from 2021, scientific publications resulting from research funded by public grants must be published in Plan S-compliant open access journals or platforms — is a significant initiative to make scientific findings more widely accessible.
  2. Open access is attractive to researchers in the Global South who have fewer resources to access to expensive journals. However, if researchers are required to pay for publication it will restrict their contributions to this same system.
  3. Despite the appeal of increasing research grants to pay for open, peer-reviewed publications, it would not impact/influence changes to the publishing model whereby journals require an article processing charge (APC) to make an article open access.
  4. Traditional publishers who are attempting to incorporate open access principles into their journals argue the business case for doing so is unclear and/or would be detrimental to their revenue stream and business sustainability.
  5. Article processing charges (APCs) may not be a sustainable business model for promoting open science; rather than subsidizing APCs, policymakers should explore and facilitate alternative models.
  6. The publishing industry is complex and has many established players. Changes to open access publishing policies have the potential to create winners and losers, so it is important to have as many stakeholders involved in the discussions as possible.
  7. Critics accuse academic institutions of holding back the adoption of open access publications; for example, for promotion and tenure decisions, they assign less weight to the fact that an article is open access and more weight to the journal in which it is published.

Actions:

  1. Stakeholders in the scholarly publication ecosystem (publishers, funders, policymakers, established and early career researchers, institutions, and open science advocates) must work together to define a system that is acceptable and equitable for all.
  2. Academics must encourage their students to seek publication in open access journals and repositories, rather than favouring traditional, high-journal-impact-factor outlets.
  3. Funding agencies with an interest in open science must find a way of helping researchers to publish in the open, especially in the Global South where article processing charges may be a more significant barrier.
  4. Academic organizations with an interest in supporting open access publishing must work directly with open access advocates to help shape a system that is cost-effective, sustainable, and equitable for all concerned.

Conference Day: Day 1 – November 13th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Risk, Uncertainty, Unknowns, and Nonsense — Engagement with the Public on Radiation, Nuclear, and Climate

Organizers: The Centre for the Study of Science and Innovation Policy and Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy

Speakers: Bethany Penn, Strategic Research Officer, Centre for the Study of Science and Innovation Policy; Anne T. Ballantyne, Strategic Research Planning and Facilitation Officer, Office of the Vice-Dean Research, Scholarly and Artistic Work, College of Arts and Science, University of Saskatchewan; Larissa Shasko, MPP Candidate, Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy; Michaela Neetz, MPP Candidate, Johnson Shoyama School of Public Policy; Holly Laasko, Research Associate, Canadian Nuclear Laboratories

Moderator: Margot Hurlbert, Tier 1, Canada Research Chair, Climate Change, Energy and Sustainability Policy, Centre for the Study of Science and Innovation Policy, Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy, University of Regina

Takeaways:

  1. It is important to distinguish between low-energy, non-ionizing radiation, which is mostly benign, and high-energy ionizing radiation that can cause physiological damage.
  2. Most of our exposure comes in the form of low-dose radiation (LDR), which by definition should have a limited effect on human health, although research in this area has been ongoing for decades.
  3. Specific definitions of LDR make it possible to assess individuals’ exposure under given conditions, such as flying in a commercial aircraft at altitudes where atmospheric protection is reduced or undergoing a medical-imaging procedure that employs radioisotopes.
  4. As our understanding of biology expands into areas such as epigenetics, questions have emerged about the effect that radiation might have on these newly discovered physiological interactions.

Suggested Actions:

  1. Researchers must continue to explore the impact of radiation on living systems, since we continue to reveal new aspects of these systems and how their healthy functioning could be compromised.
  2. Regulators must support ongoing research into the health effects of radiation in order to have the information necessary to draw practical conclusions about acceptable exposures.
  3. Policymakers should make an important distinction between the way in which scientists engage in an inquiry with specific technical objectives and the public expectation that such inquiries will yield a much more general contribution to the notion of safety.
  4. In discussions of the impact or management of radiation, communication skills will be essential to gaining and maintaining the trust of any intended audience, whose interests and needs must be identified in order to shape effective messages about complex topics.
  5. Scientists should understand that the public response to their work will be based on more than their formal publications, which could well be inaccessible to most people, but will instead depend on other sources, including social media outlets that may be tainted with misinformation or disinformation.

conference panel

Day 3 – November 15th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

The Future of Research Excellence: A Conversation with Canada’s Granting Agencies 

Organized by: Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) with support from the Canada Research Coordinating Committee Secretariat (CRCC).

Speakers: Ted Hewitt, President, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada and Chair, Canada Research Coordinating Committee; Tammy Clifford, Vice-President, Research Programs, Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Alejandro Adem, President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council; Roseann O’Reilly Runte, President and CEO, Canada Foundation for Innovation

Moderator: Liette Vasseur, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Chair, Community Sustainability: from Local to Global; Professor, Department of Biological Sciences and the Women and Gender Program, Brock University

Takeaways:

  1. CFI, CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC engage researchers and their partners regularly in defining excellent research through the merit review process and through consultations and engagement activities. It is one of most important services they provide to the research community, the Government of Canada and Canadians.
  2. The concept of research excellence is changing because our understanding of what constitutes knowledge, its creation and its use is expanding to:
    1. Include interdisciplinary research and a continuum of fundamental, applied, creation research;
    2. Account for international, institutional and other differences in working conditions;
    3. Consider the links with teaching and mentorship, service, professional training and career progression;
    4. Recognize the significance of equitable and inclusive participation in the research system, including through the co-development of knowledge with people living and working in other cultures and sectors;
    5. Appreciate the importance of knowledge translation and innovation, including the need to integrate and engage knowledge users throughout the research process;
    6. Value multiple epistemologies; and, fundamentally,
    7. Acknowledge that research is a social and cultural activity.
  3. The agencies have come together, along with the National Research Council; Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada; Health Canada and the Chief Science Advisor to address some of these challenges, notably through the CRCC.
  4. They are finding new ways to support international, inter-disciplinary, fast-breaking, high-risk/high-reward research within the New Frontiers in Research Fund. They have adopted tri-agency policies on equity, diversity and inclusion; on early career researchers; and have co-developed with Indigenous communities, new models for research with and by Indigenous Peoples.
  5. They have also signed onto the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Like more than 1,500 other organizations around the world, they are recognizing the diversity of research outcomes, beyond publications, and committing to assessing them on their own merits.

Canada joins global movement to elevate “research excellence”

Global efforts to address increasingly complex challenges are playing a role in transforming how funders define, fund and measure research excellence. Senior executives with Canada’s research granting agencies came together at the Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) to discuss what they are doing collectively to raise the bar for research excellence through policies that promote research that is open, international and interdisciplinary as well as equitable, diverse and inclusive.

UNESCO made major strides on this issue with its 2017 release of an Updated Recommendation on Science and Scientific Researchers, which defines who is a researcher and how research should be conducted. Specifically, it calls for greater inclusion of women and under-represented groups, as well as ethical considerations in science, open access, transparency, and a broader range of activities and outputs. Member states, including Canada, are required to report in 2020 on how they are meeting the updated recommendation.

Likewise, the European Union’s Charter for Researchers includes a detailed definition of research excellence, a commitment to EDI, and a code of conduct for recruiting researchers. For example, career breaks for maternity leave should not be counted as a strike against potential recruits.

“We are seeing scientists coming together from around the world to come up with ethical statements about how they want their contributions to the world to be used,” said Roseann O’Reilly Runte, President and CEO, Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI).

Moderator Liette Vasseur, a Brock University researcher and UNESCO Chair, noted that the four agencies and Genome Canada recently signed onto the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), which, among other things, recognizes the need to improve how research outputs are evaluated beyond the widely used journal impact factor. Other Canadian signatories include the National Research Council and the Canadian Association of Research Libraries.

A coordinated approach to research excellence

The research granting councils are increasingly taking a coordinated approach to defining and supporting research excellence. For example, in May the three councils launched the Dimensions: Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Canada Charter and recognition program – one of the leading international programs promoting EDI in higher education. To date, one in three post-secondary institutions have signed the Charter, and 17 are participating in the Dimensions pilot program. Further, 15 institutions across Canada are participating in the pilot EDI Institutional Capacity-Building Grant program, which provides support for the adaptation and implementation of evidence-based strategies to foster EDI in the Canadian post-secondary research enterprise.

The CRCC also launched the New Frontiers in Research Fund, which includes new ways to incent and support international, interdisciplinary, fast-breaking, high-risk and high-reward research. The fund has adopted policies related to equity, diversity and inclusion (EDI) and engagement with Indigenous communities.

“Interdisciplinarity and EDI are incorporated into the program as elements of research excellence to be adjudicated, not just by administration and staff, but by the peer review process,” said Ted Hewitt, President of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

Peer reviewers receive EDI training as part of this new process. The CRCC also selects reviewers who have experience with interdisciplinary research.

“We are experimenting with other mechanisms like not using CVs in early assessments – that gets the ideas on the table without the prejudice that might come with the names associated with them,” said Hewitt, adding, “We’re still early days with this.”

The evolving definition of research excellence also takes into account other knowledge systems, including Indigenous knowledge. Hewitt said the granting councils are engaging with partners across the country to rethink how Indigenous research is funded. “It will impact how our councils operate with our partners in Indigenous communities”. Results from the agencies’ year-long engagement with Indigenous communities will be made public in the new year.

Inclusivity also must include the global south, which has complained that much of the scientific knowledge – “the new wealth and power of the world” – is not available to them, said O’Reilly Runte.

“All cultures have the ability to create knowledge and wisdom and those creations must come together for a better understanding of the human condition,” said Runte. She added that when parts of the world are not active in the development of new technologies, such as big data and artificial intelligence, there is fear over the misuse and abuse of those technologies. “It has potential power over their livelihoods and lives,” she added.

Measuring research excellence

Defining research excellence is not easy. Measuring it is even more difficult.

Alejandro Adem, President, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC), said they are working with other CRCC members, along with Genome Canada and the broader research community in Canada, to review policies, programs, tools and practices to identify ways to improve how research is evaluated.

For example, Adem said there are now academic experts in interdisciplinary science who have developed metrics that can help reviewers evaluate interdisciplinary projects. NSERC is also including EDI considerations in its evaluations, in accordance to DORA principles.

“The way we evaluate research has to be much broader and more inclusive,” said Adem. “EDI can strengthen the natural sciences and engineering community by ensuring that more qualified researchers have access to funding programs, enhancing the integrity of applications and strengthening research outputs.”

NSERC has taken steps to more fully integrate EDI into its programs, notably its Discovery Grants. Applicants are now required to explain their process for identifying, recruiting and selecting research personnel based on EDI best practices.

“These changes are not being introduced because of an ideology – it’s about creating better science,” said Adam.

Tammy Clifford, Vice-President, Research Programs, at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) agreed, saying it’s essential to communicate that equity and excellence go hand-in-hand.

“That’s why as funders, we need to be evaluating this and collecting the data to show it’s making a difference.”

The good news, added Clifford, is the growing recognition that research excellence is about more than publications and citations. Increasingly, it may also include the interdisciplinary nature of the research, the impact of the research on society or the economy and other considerations like outreach, mentorship, engagement and leadership.

At CIHR, projects receive high marks for collaborations with patients, policymakers and other partners, as well as demonstrating how research can move from the bench to the bedside and beyond, including public policy.

“This emphasis on knowledge translation makes it all more important that we redefine excellence as the co-production of knowledge as its potential impact needs to be taken into account when we’re assessing the merits of research,” said Clifford.

The CFI considers non-traditional forms of publication and uses standards-based assessment.

Increasingly, granting councils are engaging the broader “research ecosystem”, notably students and early career researchers, to better define, recognize and inspire this evolving vision of excellence. Training and mentoring are considered key. For example, CIHR’s training strategy supports trainee career planning and skills development, and provides opportunities for multidisciplinary and multisector research, as well as professional experience.

Research excellence also increasingly depends on strong partnerships with the private, public and not-for-profit sectors – the “end users” of research. NSERC recently revamped its research partnerships activities into a new simplified program, called Alliance, which offers a single point of entry to develop and grow research collaborations.

conference panel seated

Day 2 – November 14th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Evidence in Practice: How do Decision-Makers Obtain and Use Information? 

Organized by: Kimberly Girling, Evidence for Democracy

Speakers: Ted Hsu, Former Member of Parliament; Kimberly Girling, Research and Policy Director, Evidence for Democracy; Karen Akerlof, Assistant Professor, Department of Environmental Science and Policy, George Mason University; Briony M. Lalor, Co-founder/Director, Nature Hudson

Moderator: Preston Manning, Founder, Manning Foundation for Democratic Education; Manning Centre for Building Democracy

Takeaways:

  1. Evidence is just one factor considered in decision-making; economic considerations and public opinion also matter. Evidence can also come from sources other than scientists (e.g., advocacy groups, lobbyists, Library of Parliament).
  2. Politicians and policymakers are more likely to use evidence if it is credible (from a trusted source), legitimate (includes a variety stakeholder opinions, as well as policy options and implications), is easy-to-understand and delivered at the right time.
  3. How credibility is evaluated varies among politicians.
  4. Politicians and political staffers face barriers to accessing and using science (e.g. complexity or uncertainty of the science; managing time restrictions, information overload; navigating spin or bias)
  5. The word “evidence” implies a position is being supported. Using the term “scientific evidence” may resonate more with the public.
  6. Citing evidence could encounter resistance from an increasingly apathetic and scientifically illiterate public.
  7. Dysfunctional structures or processes within government departments can make it difficult to connect with the scientific community.

Suggested Actions:

  1. Politicians and scientists need to develop an ongoing relationship so relevant evidence can be provided quickly, and in concise and easy-to-understand language, as issues arise.
  2. Create better catalogues and databases of researchers across Canada.
  3. Scientists, notably those in academia, need to engage in policy discussions (e.g., as expert witnesses at Parliamentary committees) and with the public to increase support for evidence-based decision making.
  4. Reform government structures and processes to improve communication with the scientific community. (e.g., establishing cross-sectoral policy and research networks, setting up departmental science advisors, embedding multidisciplinary scientists in mid-to-lower levels of governments where policy is happening)
  5. Increase science literacy for politicians and staffers and increase understanding of policy to scientists.
  6. Encourage early-career scientists to become interns for a political party.
  7. Provide the Library of Parliament with more financial support to improve its capacity.

Relevant reports:

conference panel speaking

Day 1 – November 13th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

How the Sciences of Human Behaviour Can Help Us Put Knowledge at the Heart of Policymaking

Organized by: European Commission’s Joint Research Centre

Speakers: Elizabeth Hardy, Senior Lead, Behavioural Insights, Impact and Innovation Unit, Privy Council Office; Laura Smillie, Project Leader of the European Commission’s Enlightenment 2.0 Research Programme; James Owen Weatherall, Professor of Logic and Philosophy of Science at the University of California; Nat Rabb, Researcher, The Policy Lab at Brown University

Moderator: Kristiann Allen, Senior Investigator, Centre for Science in Policy, Diplomacy and Society (SciPoDS), University of Auckland

Takeaways:

  1. We need a new model for incorporating science into decision making.
  2. Science is value-laden. A central problem has been how to square the ways science should have epistemic authority with the ways it is value-laden.
  3. Ideological group membership is a strong predictor of decision making.
  4. The erosion of trust in governments, experts and scientific evidence can only be addressed by greater honesty and public deliberation about interests and values.
  5. Human behaviour is at the heart of political decision making. Studying it and taking it into account results in better long-term policymaking.
  6. The evolution of “behavioural insights” practice must include a multidisciplinary approach.
  7. The Privy Council Office’s Impact and Innovation Unit, which focuses on behavioural insights, has found a gap between policy development and program implementation.
  8. Important to use qualitative methods alongside quantitative methods to measure impact.
  9. We can’t separate emotion from reason. Emotions are central to decision making and must be integrated into policymaking.
  10. Better data about our emotions and greater emotional literacy could improve policymaking. We must find ways to integrate and nurture them.

Suggested Actions:

  1. We need to think hard about how to foster ethical science communication and design institutions (like social media platforms and science communication organizations) that can more effectively moderate how information spreads.
  2. We need to build in more effective, consistent ways of measuring across organizations, governments or countries on what works and what doesn’t work in policymaking.
  3. We must increase our tolerance for risk at the bureaucratic and senior leadership levels.
  4. A human-centric approach to policy is needed to challenge the classical policy cycle. The approach must increase empathy and inclusiveness and have an understanding of stakeholders’ values and identities.

seated conference panel

Day 1 – November 13th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

International Research Collaboration in a Polarized World

Organizer: The University of Toronto, Office of the Vice-President, Research & Innovation

Speakers: Kimberly Skead, Doctoral Student, Department of Molecular Genetics, University of Toronto; Chad Gaffield, President, The Royal Society of Canada; Lissa Matyas, Vice-President of International Partnerships, Mitacs; Adam Segal, Ira A. Lipman chair in emerging technologies and national security and director of the Digital and Cyberspace Policy Program, Council on Foreign Relations

Moderator: Vivek Goel, Vice-President, Research and Innovation, and Strategic Initiatives, University of Toronto; Professor in the Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health.

Takeaways:

  1. The highly globalized, collaborative, and cooperative culture dedicated to research that grew up in the 20th century has become an arena for competition that is both more promising and more contentious in the 21st century.
  2. Foreign policy has become wrapped up in research policy to an extent that would previously have been distasteful to those who regarded science as a homogenous, globally harmonious undertaking. At the same time, we now recognize that research policy reflects as well as influences societal priorities and values, and that we cannot ignore this fundamental relationship.
  3. Research and development activities have become polarized around the prospect that public investments in science may or may not be transformed into commercial or military products that do or do not benefit the public that paid for these investments.
  4. In recent years, much of this polarization has been driven by the development of China, which has adopted a distinctly different model for supporting science and technology — one that aggressively co-opts research from anywhere in the world rather than pursuing more equitable and transparent international partnerships.
  5. In recognition of the deep complexity of the world’s most important issues, the most promising research is now also seen to be the most complex in its extent and organization. Such research often calls for multidisciplinary expertise and extensive research infrastructure that require increased investments in science, making calls for a clear return on that investment all the louder.

Suggested Actions:

  1. Canada stands to benefit economically and socially from research efforts that could solve any number of complex challenges that stand in the way of improving our quality of life.
  2. A polarized research environment makes it incumbent for Canada to adopt policies that create an internationally competitive research and innovation workforce in Canada. That means providing resources to keep workers on the cutting edge of their respective fields, and providing them with the political and legal support to ensure their work will benefit Canadian.
  3. Given that many students choose careers outside their academic fields, Canada could position itself as a place that cultivate careers in research that can compete with other options available to graduates.

conference panel - CSPC 2019

Day 2 – November 14th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

The Influence of Indigenous Knowledge on Policy and Practice

Organized by:Genome BC and Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences

Speakers: Vanessa Watts, Academic Director, Indigenous Studies Program, McMaster University; Stephen F. Cross, Director of Applied Research Chair at Conestoga College Institute of Technology & Advanced Learning; Associate Professor at the University of Victoria; Adjunct Professor in Vancouver Island University’s Department of Fisheries and Aquaculture; Gary Q Bull, Professor and Head of Forest Resources Management Department at the University of British Columbia; Manon Tremblay, Director, Indigenous Research, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada; Nadine Caron, Associate Professor, UBC Northern Medical Program; Co-Director, UBC Centre for Excellence in Indigenous Health; Pitseolak Pfeifer, Community Engagement Advisor & Owner, Inuit Solutions

Moderator: Kim TallBear, Associate Professor, Faculty of Native Studies, University of Alberta; Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Peoples, Technoscience & Environment

Takeaways:

  1. “Indigenous knowledge systems,” rather than “Indigenous knowledge,” is a more appropriate notion to underpin the fact that we are talking about complex, diverse ontologies and epistemologies, which inform Indigenous worldviews and science and which can work in partnership with Western scientific knowledge.
  2. Agencies, post-secondary institutions, and government departments fail to examine Western conceptual and practice colonial roots and biases, and to what extent projects, programs, and policy lead to work and results that are substantially relevant to Indigenous peoples.
  3. Indigenous peoples want a seat at the table as equal partners in policy and decision-making, not as token participants.
  4. There are systemic barriers at every level of agency in practice and public policy, including relating to process, which prevent Indigenous peoples from contributing fully to decision-making. This state if affairs undermines Indigenous self-determination and equal partnership.
  5. Relationship-building in research and policy-making takes time (see point about process), but it generates trust and ensures meaningful participation by Indigenous peoples.
  6. Indigenous knowledge systems have circular, holistic thinking approaches, which comes in contrast to the federal public service linear processes.
  7. Indigenous people end up leaving the federal public service because they feel a power imbalance still exists and because of lagging hiring practices and internal processes.
  8. The industry of policy, industry of research, and industry of science are “extractive industries” that have created generations of privileged experts, reinforcing colonial ways of doing things.

Actions:

  1. There is a need to move from addressing how to do research with Indigenous peoples ethically to next steps: i. putting the tools and processes in place that empower Indigenous peoples to do the research that matters to their communities, in their own ways; ii. reforming current structures to allow meaningful participation by Indigenous peoples in research and policy-making (e.g. funding, timelines, hiring practices etc.).
  2. Addressing structural change starts with individual attitudes, awareness of the complexity and diversity of Indigenous knowledge systems, focusing on outcomes rather than deliverables.
  3. Institutions or agencies should take the time to build relationships before moving forward in research. The development of a sustainable aquaculture industry on the west coast of Vancouver Island and the establishment of northern B.C.’s first BioBank are examples of initiatives that saw an opportunity or challenge, and then took the time necessary to meaningfully consult with First Nations to incorporate their perspectives, knowledge, and interests in the outcome.
  4. Funding agencies need to recognize that it takes a lot more time to engage with Indigenous peoples  and that their focus is on meaningful input and solutions/results that help their communities rather than “publish or perish.”
  5. We have to move away from a consultative process and toward a long-term relationship that doesn’t go with a set deadline. Recognize that for Indigenous peoples the relationship doesn’t end when the project ends, or when funding runs out – it’s long-term.

conference panel

Day 2 – November 14th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Precision Policy – Advances in Big Data Analytics and Government Policy

Organized by: Simon Fraser University

Speakers: Ruby Mendenhall, Associate Professor of Sociology, African American Studies, Urban and Regional Planning, Gender and Women’s Studies and Social Work, University of Illinois; Lynn Barr-Telford, Assistant Chief Statistician, Social, Health and Labour Statistics, Statistics Canada; Julian Myles Somers, Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University

Moderator: Dugan O’Neil, Associate Vice-President, Research, Simon Fraser University

Takeaways:

  1. Academia and government partner to address specific problems or questions using big data. For example:
    1. Statistics Canada and academic partners use machine learning techniques and natural language processing to make sense of the unstructured narratives in big data to support big policy questions such as those related to public health (e.g., understanding the underlying factors and causes of death using the Canadian Coroner and Medical Examiner Database).
    2. A study of how gun violence in Chicago affects black mothers’ mental and physical health included mothers as citizen scientists. The mothers wore sensors to track how their body responds to gunshot sounds and other stressors. The data were then presented to the community with the goal of working with legislators to improve their communities.
  2. Data can have greater influence when it is linked to government Mandate letters, ministerial commitments and other documents that form the social context of policy development.
  3. There are benefits, as well as perceived risks, to using individualized data (i.e., improving the health of the larger community vs personal privacy and ownership of data).
  4. Several best practices are emerging for improving and increasing the use of public data for the public interest:
    1. Ensure the people who will be affected by a policy are at the table and sharing their knowledge.
    2. Trust is critical. This requires legislation or confidentiality and data stewardship built into the partnership.
    3. Partnerships between government and academia need to overcome differences in culture (e.g., academics may be asked not to publish their findings, or meet deadlines that are much tighter than typical research timelines).
    4. Structured partnerships are more effective than ad-hoc relationships.
  5. Several approaches can be taken to identify a partner that meets your needs, while ensuring both partners benefit:
    1. Look for overlapping issues. For example, a study aiming to collect digital stories from 100,000 black people to identify healthy and unhealthy neighbourhoods could partner with local organizations and policymakers with the additional data needed to produce effective evidence.
    2. Policymakers can visit a university’s website or use Google Scholar to find experts doing research in their area of interest.
    3. Focus the dialogue on how trusted and reliable data can be used to help decision-making.

CSPC 2019 conference panel

Day 1 – November 13th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Not a Palaver! How Can Interdisciplinary, Intersectoral and International Collaboration be Successful?

Organized by: UK Research and Innovation North America 

Speakers: Melanie Welham, Executive Chair, UKRI Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council; Joy Johnson, Vice-President Research and International, and Professor Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University; Ted Hewitt, President, Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada; Chair of the Canada Research Coordinating Committee; John Laughlin, Chief Technology Officer, Next Generation Manufacturing Canada (NGen)

Moderator: Jean Lebel, President, International Development Research Centre

Takeaways:

  1. Requirements to collaborate across disciplines, sectors or borders can be built into the design of research programs.
  2. Challenge programs can be effective at bringing diverse disciplines and sectors together to focus on a common issue.
  3. Collaborative programs need to be well designed and evaluated.
  4. All partners need to realize benefits from the research.
  5. There are clear benefits to interdisciplinary, intersectoral and international research (e.g., more highly cited and impactful publications), especially when addressing complex challenges. Where research is lacking is in how to evaluate interdisciplinary research.
  6. There is a need to collaborate more with researchers from the global south, especially in addressing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
  7. Companies that compete against each other can be encouraged to partner using new collaborative models (e.g., open innovation).
  8. Universities need to create opportunities for researchers from different disciplines to interact with each other and with potential partners outside of academia.
  9. Universities need to continue to identify ways to recognize and reward researchers who engage in collaborative research.
  10. International faculty and student exchanges build new linkages that can lead to new research collaborations.

How Canada and the UK are driving new models in collaborative research

International research collaborations that involve multiple scientific disciplines and multiple sectors are essential for tackling the complex challenges faced by industry and society. But those collaborations don’t happen by accident. Increasingly, as CSPC delegates heard, they require dedicated funding and other mechanisms to create meaningful partnerships that deliver results.

“Working across disciplines brings new approaches, new perspectives and new ways of looking at old problems and we increasingly see working across disciplines as being the way to push back those frontiers,” said Melanie Welham, Executive Chair, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

Encouraging collaborations may require research funders to break down organizational as well as disciplinary silos. For example, in 2017 the federal government established the Canada Research Coordinating Committee – a new mechanism that allows the primary funders of academic research to launch joint initiatives that have interdisciplinarity built into the design.

“When we designed the New Frontiers in Research Fund (NFRF) we were looking to promote development of new funding opportunities that didn’t mirror the granting councils’ opportunities,” said Ted Hewitt, President of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, adding. “We want to attract proposals that bring together disciplines and diverse teams of researchers who would not normally work together.”

The first competition from that fund supported high-risk, high-reward interdisciplinary research. The second competition will provide large-scale support (up to $24 million over six years) for interdisciplinary research that is also transformative.

“Instead of setting priorities and deciding these are the things we want to get at or these are the government priorities, we said ‘no, you determine what challenges are, you convince us of the nature of the challenge and then you tell us how you will deal with these in ways that are different or that nobody else could get at,” said Hewitt.

Joy Johnson, Vice-President Research at Simon Fraser University, applauded programs like NFRF which require researchers to organize themselves in new ways. “I’m a big believer in carrots, in finding ways to encourage these types of affiliations to take place … having some glue or stickiness for teams to come together can be very positive.”

At the same time, Johnson said there needs to be a way for research funders to determine if these partnerships are effective and delivering results. “We need research on how we do that evaluation and how we measure the impacts.”

Universities also have their challenges. While interdisciplinary collaborations are becoming more common, Johnson explained that there are still structural barriers to overcome. For example, the historical preference for discipline-based faculties means that “universities are not purpose-built for interdisciplinary research”, she said.

Johnson added that universities need to find ways to “set the table, to find ways for people to come together, to meet one another and to think about what the opportunities are … Doing that also helps us with collaborating in a larger way with our community partners.”

The UK experience

The UK has also taken steps to encourage more research collaborations. The creation of UKRI in 2018 brought together the seven Research Councils, spanning all the different research disciplines, as well as Innovate UK and Research England. “UKRI is enabling us to think differently on how to support interdisciplinary research to push back those boundaries,” said Welham.

One UKRI program, the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, funds collaborations between industry and research organizations to solve specific challenges, such as accelerating detection of disease, commercializing quantum and industrial decarbonization.

The idea for such challenges often come from companies looking for solutions, said John Laughlin, Chief Technology Officer of the Next Generation Manufacturing Canada (NGen) supercluster, which aims to create 13,500 jobs and boosts Canada’s GDP by $13.5 billion.

Laughlin joined NGen from the U.K. where he was responsible for running some of that government’s highest profile R&D programs. These included the Automotive Low Carbon Vehicle R&D program and the UK’s Aerospace program.

However, Laughlin cautioned against making the challenges too complex or forcing collaborations that don’t make sense. “Then you are in danger of imbalancing the opportunity to get true innovation, so the design of these challenges is important.”

Hewitt said SSHRC’s Partnership Development Grants avoid this pitfall by having researchers design both the challenge and the solution. “Then we test that based on what the partners of the researchers – who are intended to be the beneficiaries –achieve.”

Challenges in industry

For a growing number of industry sectors, interdisciplinary and intersectoral research has become a competitive imperative. Laughlin pointed to the manufacturing industry which just a decade ago had most of their capabilities under one roof.

“Today you need sensor data and cloud services, software, data analytics, advanced mechatronics – all these new disciplines don’t exist in one organization or under one manufacturing  roof. You need collaboration to overcome some of the challenges of next generation manufacturing,” he told delegates.

For example, an NGen project led by Toronto start-up iVexSol Canada is developing an advanced manufacturing process for therapeutic lentiviral vectors that will radically reduce the cost and time to produce cell and gene therapies for late-stage cancer and rare diseases.

“That’s a breakthrough of different disciplines working together to solve a problem using manufacturing technology,” said Laughlin.

Partnering with the global south

Another UKRI initiative – the Global Challenges Research Fund – takes a unique approach to supporting collaborations with researchers in developing countries. The fund’s £1.5 billion, four-year research budget is part of the UK’s international aid budget.

“There are not just global problems in the south, but they also feedback and benefit the north as well,” said Welham. “It’s really important that we understand that there is a flow of benefits in all directions.”

Too often researchers from the global south are not partners in projects that have a direct impact on them. For example, 85% of the world’s refugees are in the global south, yet more than 85% of the research on refugees and forced migration originates from scholars in the global north, noted moderator Jean Lebel, President, International Development Research Centre.

“If we are to attain the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals we (research funders) must be working effectively in fragile contexts,” said Lebel. “The need for research and research capacity in these spaces is acute.”

Lebel added that governments need to recognize the value of international collaborations, even when national interests are sometimes at odds with international interests.

Fortunately, added Welham, there is “really good evidence” demonstrating the benefits of international collaboration. For example, publications that arise from international collaborations are more highly cited and more impactful.

Funding to support international collaborations is important, but Johnson said other mechanisms are needed, including student and faculty exchanges in both academia and industry.

“Building strong and robust international collaborations starts with relationships,” said Johnson. “We have to think about all those bridges we can build.”

conference panel speakers

Day 2 – November 14th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Not a Palaver! How Can Interdisciplinary, Intersectoral and International Collaboration be Successful?

Organized by: UK Research and Innovation North America 

Speakers: Melanie Welham, Executive Chair, UKRI Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council; Joy Johnson, Vice-President Research and International, and Professor Health Sciences, Simon Fraser University; Ted Hewitt, President, Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada; Chair of the Canada Research Coordinating Committee; John Laughlin, Chief Technology Officer, Next Generation Manufacturing Canada (NGen)

Moderator: Jean Lebel, President, International Development Research Centre

Takeaways:

  1. Requirements to collaborate across disciplines, sectors or borders can be built into the design of research programs.
  2. Challenge programs can be effective at bringing diverse disciplines and sectors together to focus on a common issue.
  3. Collaborative programs need to be well designed and evaluated.
  4. All partners need to realize benefits from the research.
  5. There are clear benefits to interdisciplinary, intersectoral and international research (e.g., more highly cited and impactful publications), especially when addressing complex challenges. Where research is lacking is in how to evaluate interdisciplinary research.
  6. There is a need to collaborate more with researchers from the global south, especially in addressing the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
  7. Companies that compete against each other can be encouraged to partner using new collaborative models (e.g., open innovation).
  8. Universities need to create opportunities for researchers from different disciplines to interact with each other and with potential partners outside of academia.
  9. Universities need to continue to identify ways to recognize and reward researchers who engage in collaborative research.
  10. International faculty and student exchanges build new linkages that can lead to new research collaborations.

How Canada and the UK are driving new models in collaborative research

International research collaborations that involve multiple scientific disciplines and multiple sectors are essential for tackling the complex challenges faced by industry and society. But those collaborations don’t happen by accident. Increasingly, as CSPC delegates heard, they require dedicated funding and other mechanisms to create meaningful partnerships that deliver results.

“Working across disciplines brings new approaches, new perspectives and new ways of looking at old problems and we increasingly see working across disciplines as being the way to push back those frontiers,” said Melanie Welham, Executive Chair, UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council.

Encouraging collaborations may require research funders to break down organizational as well as disciplinary silos. For example, in 2017 the federal government established the Canada Research Coordinating Committee – a new mechanism that allows the primary funders of academic research to launch joint initiatives that have interdisciplinarity built into the design.

“When we designed the New Frontiers in Research Fund (NFRF) we were looking to promote development of new funding opportunities that didn’t mirror the granting councils’ opportunities,” said Ted Hewitt, President of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, adding. “We want to attract proposals that bring together disciplines and diverse teams of researchers who would not normally work together.”

The first competition from that fund supported high-risk, high-reward interdisciplinary research. The second competition will provide large-scale support (up to $24 million over six years) for interdisciplinary research that is also transformative.

“Instead of setting priorities and deciding these are the things we want to get at or these are the government priorities, we said ‘no, you determine what challenges are, you convince us of the nature of the challenge and then you tell us how you will deal with these in ways that are different or that nobody else could get at,” said Hewitt.

Joy Johnson, Vice-President Research at Simon Fraser University, applauded programs like NFRF which require researchers to organize themselves in new ways. “I’m a big believer in carrots, in finding ways to encourage these types of affiliations to take place … having some glue or stickiness for teams to come together can be very positive.”

At the same time, Johnson said there needs to be a way for research funders to determine if these partnerships are effective and delivering results. “We need research on how we do that evaluation and how we measure the impacts.”

Universities also have their challenges. While interdisciplinary collaborations are becoming more common, Johnson explained that there are still structural barriers to overcome. For example, the historical preference for discipline-based faculties means that “universities are not purpose-built for interdisciplinary research”, she said.

Johnson added that universities need to find ways to “set the table, to find ways for people to come together, to meet one another and to think about what the opportunities are … Doing that also helps us with collaborating in a larger way with our community partners.”

The UK experience

The UK has also taken steps to encourage more research collaborations. The creation of UKRI in 2018 brought together the seven Research Councils, spanning all the different research disciplines, as well as Innovate UK and Research England. “UKRI is enabling us to think differently on how to support interdisciplinary research to push back those boundaries,” said Welham.

One UKRI program, the Industrial Strategy Challenge Fund, funds collaborations between industry and research organizations to solve specific challenges, such as accelerating detection of disease, commercializing quantum and industrial decarbonization.

The idea for such challenges often come from companies looking for solutions, said John Laughlin, Chief Technology Officer of the Next Generation Manufacturing Canada (NGen) supercluster, which aims to create 13,500 jobs and boosts Canada’s GDP by $13.5 billion.

Laughlin joined NGen from the U.K. where he was responsible for running some of that government’s highest profile R&D programs. These included the Automotive Low Carbon Vehicle R&D program and the UK’s Aerospace program.

However, Laughlin cautioned against making the challenges too complex or forcing collaborations that don’t make sense. “Then you are in danger of imbalancing the opportunity to get true innovation, so the design of these challenges is important.”

Hewitt said SSHRC’s Partnership Development Grants avoid this pitfall by having researchers design both the challenge and the solution. “Then we test that based on what the partners of the researchers – who are intended to be the beneficiaries –achieve.”

Challenges in industry

For a growing number of industry sectors, interdisciplinary and intersectoral research has become a competitive imperative. Laughlin pointed to the manufacturing industry which just a decade ago had most of their capabilities under one roof.

“Today you need sensor data and cloud services, software, data analytics, advanced mechatronics – all these new disciplines don’t exist in one organization or under one manufacturing  roof. You need collaboration to overcome some of the challenges of next generation manufacturing,” he told delegates.

For example, an NGen project led by Toronto start-up iVexSol Canada is developing an advanced manufacturing process for therapeutic lentiviral vectors that will radically reduce the cost and time to produce cell and gene therapies for late-stage cancer and rare diseases.

“That’s a breakthrough of different disciplines working together to solve a problem using manufacturing technology,” said Laughlin.

Partnering with the global south

Another UKRI initiative – the Global Challenges Research Fund – takes a unique approach to supporting collaborations with researchers in developing countries. The fund’s £1.5 billion, four-year research budget is part of the UK’s international aid budget.

“There are not just global problems in the south, but they also feedback and benefit the north as well,” said Welham. “It’s really important that we understand that there is a flow of benefits in all directions.”

Too often researchers from the global south are not partners in projects that have a direct impact on them. For example, 85% of the world’s refugees are in the global south, yet more than 85% of the research on refugees and forced migration originates from scholars in the global north, noted moderator Jean Lebel, President, International Development Research Centre.

“If we are to attain the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals we (research funders) must be working effectively in fragile contexts,” said Lebel. “The need for research and research capacity in these spaces is acute.”

Lebel added that governments need to recognize the value of international collaborations, even when national interests are sometimes at odds with international interests.

Fortunately, added Welham, there is “really good evidence” demonstrating the benefits of international collaboration. For example, publications that arise from international collaborations are more highly cited and more impactful.

Funding to support international collaborations is important, but Johnson said other mechanisms are needed, including student and faculty exchanges in both academia and industry.

“Building strong and robust international collaborations starts with relationships,” said Johnson. “We have to think about all those bridges we can build.”

conference speaker from Queens

conference panel 2019

Day 3 – November 15th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Municipalities: Terrain for Innovation

Organized by:  Fonds de recherche du Québec

Speakers: Rémi Quirion, Chief Scientist of Quebec; Julie-Maude Normandin, Co-director, Research and Communications, Cité-ID Living-lab; Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin, Mayor of Gatineau; Nancy Deziel, CEO, CNETE; City Councillor for District de la rivière, City of Shawinigan

Moderator: Brooke Struck, Research Director, The Decision Lab

Takeaways:

  1. Provincial and federal governments, and researchers, need to partner with municipalities when developing evidence-based policies that have local impacts.
  2. Federal and provincial governments need different strategies when collaborating with different sizes of municipalities.
  3. Building trust and relationships takes time and should be developed before a crisis happens.
  4. The high credibility of scientists helps to de-politicize sensitive local issues.
  5. Municipalities have finite time and resources so need additional support to partner with the scientific community.
  6. Greater collaboration across municipal departments and with other municipalities builds capacity when addressing issues of common concern.
  7. Researchers need to focus more on action research, than theoretical research, when collaborating with municipalities.
  8. Research funders and third party organizations can encourage and support collaborative opportunities.

Municipalities call for improved linkages with scientists and evidence

Municipalities are often on the frontlines when it comes to addressing many crises, from floods and fires to opioid overdoses and immigration. Unfortunately, local governments often lack the time and resources to engage with the scientists and research institutions that could help identify potential solutions.

Those were among the main messages heard at the closing CSPC plenary examining the unique barriers cities face in accessing Canada’s wealth of scientific expertise.

“It’s essential that municipalities be more involved with researchers because we need science to manage a crisis as it’s happening, and to better prepare for or prevent future disasters,” said Gatineau PQ mayor Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin, whose city has been struck with two devastating floods and a tornado over the past three years.

While he said municipal-scientist partnerships are essential, they can be difficult to establish and maintain.

“Gatineau is a case study for researchers, but we have limited capacity to interact with them,” said Pedneaud-Jobin. “We need to formalize those collaborations … or have institutions that can help cities interact directly with researchers and other levels of government and departments.”

Scientists are considered more credible than politicians, the panelists agreed. So when an engineer, biologist or economist says a proposed solution is backed by robust evidence, the public is more likely to listen. For example, citizens often demand new roads to deal with traffic congestion. But numerous studies have found that adding new highway lane capacity actually increases traffic. Scientists can help to depoliticize such issues.

“Municipalities are often caught between fact-based solutions to real problems and the citizens’ common sense,” said Pedneaud-Jobin.

One collaborative model in Quebec has been around for 25 years. CNETE at Cegep de Shawinigan – a National Centre in Environmental Technology and Electrochemistry – conducts multidisciplinary and applied research on environmentally sustainable processes and products for companies and municipalities.

“Each year we do about 100 projects with 70 partners,” said Nancy Deziel, CEO, CNETE and a Shawinigan city councillor. “I interact mostly with cities in areas like organic waste treatment, biogas purification and drinking water production.”

A newer group, the Cité-ID Living-lab in Urban Resilience Governance, was established in 2018 in Montreal to provide a real-world innovation space where city managers, private enterprises, not-profits, citizens and multidisciplinary teams of academic researchers co-develop and implement new policies, processes and tools to address pressing issues such as climate change or disruptive technologies.

“Municipalities are at the front lines. Consequently, they must take an active part in the operation and implementation of evidence-based policies to reduce their vulnerabilities and to be prepared to face the next event,” said Julie-Maude Normandin, Co-director, Research and Communications at Cité-ID Living-lab.

In one study, Cité-ID researchers found that Montreal is home to 180 different organizations involved in climate change adaptation, yet the links between these various groups are weak.

“So we recommended to the City of Montreal that they develop a strategy to increase linkages with other organizations, share innovations, and implement projects that can move from one neighbourhood to another or from one city to another. These types of governance tools help municipalities understand their place and role in the network,” added Normandin.

The role of research funders

Research funders can also help bridge the gap between local government and science. In response to ongoing floods in the province, in December 2018 Quebec’s Chief Scientist Rémi Quirion announced the launch of the Quebec Intersectoral Flood Network (Réseau Inondations intersectoriel du Québec or RIISQ) which brings together 16 universities and more than 30 partners, including municipalities, provincial and federal departments, and other research centres.

“This was formed as a result of discussions with colleagues at municipal level,” said Quirion

Another new Quebec program, called Engagement, supports citizen research that is important to municipalities.

At the international level, in September 2020 Montreal will host the next conference of the International Network for Government Science Advice (INGSA), which Quirion said will have a strong focus on cities, including their capacity to help Canada meet its commitment to implement the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.

“If we want to provide real solutions to the SDGs it will happen at the local level,” said Quirion. “We can make more progress (on the SDGs) by working with cities and by empowering citizens.”

One delegate attending the session also suggested the Canadian Water Network as another organization that builds long-term relationships between municipalities and researchers.

Building local capacity

The panel’s moderator Brooke Struck, Research Director at The Decision Lab, stressed that local emergencies often involve multiple departments within a municipality, and even other towns and cities.

“Many challenges spill over municipal boundaries,” said Struck. “We need all of our departments working in concert within a municipal system, all while working with neighbouring municipalities who also have to have their house in order.”

One solution to build capacity, suggested Deziel, is to link a research team with several small cities – perhaps under the auspices of the Union des municipalités du Québec – to bid for research funding related to a complex and multidisciplinary issue like waste water, public transportation or floods. The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, for example, now recognizes cities as eligible partners in funding applications.

“There isn’t much of a habit of collaboration between cities, researchers and universities … but there are lots of possibilities for such collaborations,” said Deziel.

Quirion stressed that relationships between cities, researchers or relevant government departments need to be developed over time – not when a crisis is underway. He suggested there may be a role for Quebec’s research funding agency (Les Fonds de recherche du Québec) in helping build those bridges.

Normandin said they’ve been trying to do just that at Cité-ID Living-lab by linking smaller cities so they can pool resources and share best practices, and develop solutions that are transferrable from one city to another. “We’ve tried to develop a process that will address during the research the boundaries and jurisdictions between different governments, especially municipal and provincial.”