The following topics are covered within the Science, International Affairs and Security Development Theme

  • Science diplomacy and new world order

  • Science in the age of de-globalization

  • Cyber Security; a serious global challenge

  • Sustainable Development Goals 2030

  • International community and climate change

Conference Panel for Personhood rights

Day 1 – November 13th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Personhood Rights for Water Bodies: A Fad or Path to Sustainable Development Goals?

Organized by: University of Waterloo, Nancy Goucher

Speakers: Peter Wood, National Campaign Manager, Environmental Rights, David Suzuki Foundation; Lynda M Collins, Professor, Centre for Environmental Law & Global Sustainability, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa; Caleb Z. Behn, Special Advisor – Water, Assembly of First Nations

Moderator: Nancy Goucher, Knowledge Mobilization Specialist, University of Waterloo’s Water Institute

Takeaways:

  1. Giving personhood rights to water bodies is a policy option for water protection. Legal relationships with nature are being reinvented. Several countries are enacting legislation giving nature or water personhood rights.
  2. Corporations (non-human entities) have personhood rights in Canada. In a court case, when nature does not, it will always lose.
  3. The idea is not new. It is found in many indigenous cultures around the world.
  4. The human right to a healthy environment is an effective tool. Giving personhood rights to nature goes a step further.
  5. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms currently does not include rights for nature but could be a constitutional safety net for environmental protection if environmental rights were enshrined.
  6. The Blue Dot movement through the David Suzuki Fundation is working to make a healthy environment a personal right in Canada. So far 174 municipalities, and 100,000 individuals, have signed on.
  7. Depending on race, Canadians experience a different level of environmental health. For example, there are indigenous communities that lack of critical infrastructure to maintain clean drinking water.
  8. The Canadian legal system is seen to be designed for conflict mitigation, not justice. It does not include ways to incorporate indigenous knowledge. As a result, indigenous knowledge is being judged by Canadian law.

Actions:

  1. Choose biological markers of the health of nature to be written in the statute, then choose the human component (markers of health based on how people experience nature) including indigenous knowledge.
  2. In its overarching project of sustaining our presence on Earth, environmental law has failed. Ditch the idea of having a specific area of law: environmental law doesn’t really work. It needs to be included in all aspects of law.

Resources: 

  1. The Rights of Nature; David Boyd
  2. Human Rights, Environmental Protection, and the Sustainable Development Goals; John H. Knox

conference speaker

Conference Panel for AI

Day 3 – November 15th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Artificial Intelligence: Building Resilience Against Cyber Threats

Organized by: Simon Fraser University

Speakers: Zalina Gappoeva, Principal Security Architect, Cyber Security Solution Architecture; Dominic Vogel, Founder & Chief Strategist, Cyber.sc; Zahra Zohrevand, Senior Member of Technical Staff, Oracle Labs

Moderator: Uwe Glässer, Professor, Computing Science, Simon Fraser University

Takeaways:

  1. The number of cyber incidents is increasing globally and the finance and insurance sectors are the biggest targets.
  2. The financial system is particularly vulnerable due to its ever-increasing global interconnectivity.
  3. Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) are not inherently positive, nor are they better than traditional security approaches or smarter than humans, but they are tools that can supplement and augment our current way of doing cybersecurity.
  4. Human analysts will continue to be essential to cybersecurity, but AI must also be used in cybersecurity applications as attackers will use it: Only AI can compete with AI.
  5. To generate marketing hype, some security organizations are adding AI and ML to their products in ways that are not useful and may actually be inferior to previous, non-AI iterations.

Actions:

  1. Any organization that uses a cybersecurity vendor who recently added AI to their products should ensure the AI is actually adding value.
  2. Startups and small and medium businesses must consider and build in cybersecurity from when they are founded, as well as at the beginning of any new product development.
  3. All levels of government need to proactively develop security initiatives (not wait until after they are attacked).
  4. Larger governmental agencies may need to step in to support smaller municipalities who do not have funding to develop these systems.
  5. AI security systems have to be explainable to everyone who relies on them, so they can trust and understand how to react to the outcomes.

Conference Panel for National Security

Day 3 – November 15th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Lines in the Sand: the Struggle for National Security in a World of Globalized Technology

Organized by:  Mike Pereira, David Johnston Research + Technology Park

Speakers: Bill Munson, University of Waterloo; Bessma Momani, Professor, University of Waterloo; Patrick Rhude, Management, Nokia Security

Moderator: Mike Pereira, David Johnston Research + Technology Park

Takeaways:

  1. Technology is challenging our conception of place and identity. In addition to interesting opportunities it brings terrifying risks that we’re not prepared to deal with on the policy side.
  2. Weak cybersecurity is beginning to pose real threats to social cohesion.
  3. One of the challenges of cybersecurity is that we don’t see it as a tool of war with few to no regulations or engagement. There is also little public knowledge about potential threats.
  4. Large data collecting companies are not nearly as worrisome as countries like North Korea, China, Russia and Iran who use cyber in a way that’s disruptive and destructive from a national security perspective.
  5. People fear the state’s collection and use of our data and what that means to our privacy, yet tech companies have more information on citizens – data that is often voluntarily provided.
  6. Canada’s privacy policy is lagging decades behind what it should be.
  7. We believe that what happens in the technology and cyber domains makes our lives easier but the cumulative impact of that for rogue states or adversaries is a real threat.
  8. The digitization of everything – even traditionally heavy infrastructure like roads and bridges – means we are increasingly vulnerable to threats to our national security.
  9. The level of protection for our critical infrastructures is very weak. We are unprepared for emerging threats.

Actions:

  1. We need to invest in the protection of our infrastructure and make it difficult to attack, not only from without but from within.
  2. We have to stop acknowledge that our security systems are archaic and vulnerable to cyber threats.
  3. We need to seriously consider mobilizing a cyber army to protect our national security. This will require incentivizing recruits and make it appealing for talent to join.

Conference Panel International Collaboration

Day 2 – November 14th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Research Without Borders: Funding Agency Case Studies on International Collaboration 

Organized by: UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) North America

Speakers: Rainer Gruhlich, Director, North America Office, German Research Foundation (DFG); Claire A. Hemingway, Program Officer, Office of International Science and Engineering, National Science Foundation (NSF); Jean-Christian Lemay, Scientist in residence, Québec Government Office in London; Chloë Somers, Director, UKRI North America; Jennifer E. Decker, Consul, Principal Advisor, International Innovation Office, National Research Council of Canada, Germany (NRC Germany)

Moderator: Monica Gattinger, Full Professor, School of Political Studies, Director, Institute for Science, Society and Policy, University of Ottawa

 Takeaways:

  1. Benefits of international collaboration include: excellence working with excellence (scientists and infrastructure); sharing research resources and large infrastructure; sharing skills training to expand the talent pipeline; and access to future markets.
  2. Challenges to international collaboration: mobility; top-down priorities do not always align with bottom up research; language barriers; ensuring ownership, not “donorship”, when working with global south.
  3. Some examples of how the National Science Foundation encourages international collaborations:
  1. Joint programs that call for international research efforts (e.g., with UKRI, Fonds de recherche du Québec, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, DFG) and funding opportunities that welcome international collaborators.
  2. Workshops that enable research communities to get to know each other early in the process before engaging in large-scale collaborations.
  3. Embassy science fellowship program with the U.S. State Department
  4. Expanded global foot print by closing offices abroad in favour of a more nimble approach that sees NSF experts deployed for short-term expeditions to selected areas to explore opportunities for collaboration.
  1. Some examples of how UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) encourages international collaborations include:
  1. Currently developing an international strategy to set out our international ambitions more clearly. Among its priorities: promote the UK as a world-class designation; target high-performance research and innovation jurisdictions (e.g., Canada); address global challenges (e.g., through the £1.5bn Global Challenges Research Fund); and build capacity and capability of UK-based research ecosystem.
  2. Leverage international aid budgets to support research collaborations with the global south. (e.g., Global Challenges Research Fund)
  3. Lead agency opportunities which enable a single application and peer review process for a bottom up joint project involving Principal Investigators from two countries (e.g. UKRI-NSF SBE Lead Agency opportunity).
  1. Some of the way’s Québec’s FRQ encourages international collaborations:
  1. Joint call for projects (USA, France, Massachusetts, UK, etc.) and take part in multilateral programs (Trans-Atlantic Platform, ERA-NEts, etc.)
  2. Increase capacity in Québec’s network of science officers abroad. Two scientists in residence have joined the 11 science officers in Québec’s government offices abroad to help facilitate partnerships in research and innovation.
  3. Financial support for international research centres (e.g., International Observatory of Societal Impacts of Artificial Intelligence, FutureEarth)
  1. How the NRC encourages international collaborations:
  1. Connect Canadian and international R&D capabilities to solve global research challenges
  2. Secure preferred access to partners (e.g., by partnering with Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and the Trade Commissioner Service)
  3. NRC contacts in Germany and Japan as points of entry for researchers and businesses.
  4. Access to resources to carryout exchange/collaboration/co-innovation projects (e.g., Initiative support joint R&D between companies in Canada and Germany).
  1. How the DFG encourages international collaborations:
    • Focus on the researchers: International collaboration enhances the quality of science.
    • Take a systems approach by internationalizing the German research landscape (e.g., using English in labs).
    • Science diplomacy: including work on international standards development, international research policies and, with the global south, on agenda setting (e.g., via the Global Research Council).

Suggested Actions:

  1. Develop an international research strategy in consultation with others in the research ecosystem to ensure a coordinated approach.
  2. Planning grants and funding for travel help researchers from different countries meet early in the process to gauge compatibility and develop trust (e.g., the BBSRC Canada Partnering Awards, e.g., planning grant track in NSF Navigating the New Arctic program).
  3. If a research funder provides seed funding, it needs to ensure there is follow-on funding for scaling up an international project.
  4. Identify or establish similar funding programs between countries that can be leveraged for collaborative projects (e.g., the DFG’s International Research Training Groups and Natural Sciences and Engineer Research Council’s Collaborative Research and Training Experience program – IRTG/CREATE)

Conference Panel for Science Diplomacy

Day 2 – November 14th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

Science Diplomacy in a Changing Arctic

Organized by: Dr. Urs Obrist, Senior Science and Technology Counsellor, Embassy of Switzerland in Canada

Speakers: Robert Kadas, Deputy Director, Nordic and Polar Relations, Global Affairs Canada; Xavier Grosmaître, Science and Higher Education Attaché, Embassy of France; Anne Kari Ovind, Ambassador of Norway to Canada; Urs Obrist, Senior Science and Technology Counsellor, Embassy of Switzerland in Canada; Hwasue Sung, Political and Environment Officer, Embassy of South Korea in Canada; Robert Tibbetts, Economic Affairs, Embassy of the United States in Canada

Moderator: David J. Scott, President and CEO, Polar Knowledge Canada

Takeaways:

  1. The Arctic region is known for political stability, and for a high level of cooperation between countries: Science cooperation paves the way for diplomatic cooperation.
  2. The Arctic is an area of global significance, and Arctic science is a priority for Arctic and non-Arctic states.
  3. In 2019, Canada launched Canada’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework.
  4. Knowledge of the region is essential for living and operating in the Arctic. Complex issues like microplastics and climate change require research participation from multiple countries.
  5. The Arctic Council is a primary arena for addressing Arctic questions.
  6. The Arctic will remain a priority for Norway, home to 10% of its residents. Norway’s Ny-Alesund Research Station in the Svalbard Archipelago focuses on internationalization, and requires that all researchers based there agree to make data and metadata available, and to publish popular science articles, communicating their research with the public.
  7. France sees climate change, and particularly its impact on arctic regions  as a global issue and a priority. Having a long history of polar research and recognized expertise in this field, France is eager to work in cooperation with other countries to conduct arctic research.
  8. Switzerland is known as a Vertical Arctic Nation, with their mountain ecosystem under stress and glaciers disappearing. A land-locked non-Arctic nation, it has expertise in studying extreme environments, and know-how for cryosphere research and cooperation.
  9. South Korea is dedicated to becoming a partner in shaping a sustainable future for the Arctic. New Arctic shipping routes offer the advantages of decreased shipping times.
  10. The Arctic is a priority for the United States, which has many and various ongoing programs for research and student training. It sees rich opportunities in the region for bilateral and multilateral cooperation.

Suggested Actions:

  1. The panellists expressed a commitment to further engagement by their governments to strengthen bilateral and multilateral cooperation in the area of Arctic Science.

Conference Panel for Inclusive Innovation Agenda

Day 2 – November 14th 2019

Takeaways and recommendations: 

From the Perspective of a New Generation of Indigenous Professionals, What Would an Inclusive Innovation Agenda Look Like?

Organized by: DIGITAL MI’KMAQ, Marni Fullerton and Chris Googoo

Speakers: Aaron Prosper, President, Dalhousie Student Union; Chris Googoo, Chief Operating Officer of Ulnooweg, and Director of Digital Mi’kmaq; Tyler Sack, Group Product Manager, Orenda Software Solutions; Evan Syliboy, Member of the Millbrook First Nation; Stephenie Bernard, Member, Treaty Education Committee, Nova Scotia

Moderator: Marni Fullerton, Director, Digital Mi’kmaq
Takeaways:

  1. Ideology is engrained in everything we do. Inclusion is accepting a different ideology. For example, how can artificial intelligence be used to bring together the two views of two-eyed seeing, which integrates indigenous and western ways of knowing?
  2. Ideology is built on mythology, and AI comes down to the training of data. Those datasets may include cultural genocide, and lack epistemology and observations rooted in indigenous cultures.
  3. Digital Mi’kmaq is helping to create a more inclusive innovation agenda by combining science, culture, education, and digital skills into programs for indigenous youth.
  4. There are pre-conceived ideas about indigenous peoples in science. (e.g., Evan Syliboy is an engineer who creates programs for Digital Mi’kmaq.) Being inclusive means leveling the playing field for indigenous students.
  5. Aboriginal law as taught in law school is really Canadian law as it applies to indigenous people. It is not indigenous law, and not inclusive of indigenous pedagogies.

Actions:

  1. To properly understand and implement inclusion, Canadians must understand indigenous history. Start by reading the documents produced by Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.
  2. In schools, be conscious of people’s identity. What does a Mi’kmaq look like in lesson plans? Create a curriculum to meet the students’ needs. Celebrate mistakes and have a growth mindset. Honour the past.
  3. Take into account what the students come with: some are from homes without computers or Wi-Fi, and may have parents without high school-level education.
  4. Reach out to indigenous people. Go to their communities and get to know them. Find out how in many ways we are the same.
  5. Go beyond the inclusion of indigenous voices/faces. Indigenous ways and knowledge need to be included in pedagogies and policies.