print this pageVolume 24 Number 7
May 21, 2010
Editorial
The federal S&T file appears to be accelerating in recent weeks as the government moves to fill key positions and launch programs and consultation processes designed to give some heft to the high-level S&T Strategy. While the latest developments have their fair share of detractors, the mere fact that the government is acting on previous commitments (digital economy strategy, Grand Challenges Canada, Canada Research Excellence Chairs) is cause for some optimism.
Yet as the government is fond of saying, there is still lots more work to do. Canadians are still waiting on a number of critical files that are key to future prosperity and social well being. How much longer are we supposed to wait for a new long-term space strategy or a decision on big science operating funding and the CANDU assets of Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd? These interminable delays are damaging not only to Canada's reputation as a nation committed to developing a knowledge-based economy, they are squandering real opportunities to provide the private sector with new business.
Despite the flurry of recent announcements, there appears to be a paucity of long-term thinking which reflects on government's diminished capacity to generate effective policy. But ultimately, it falls to government to move the S&T file more aggressively. That means ratcheting back on vote-grabbing legislation that panders to special interests groups (the gun registry, various tough-on-crime bills) and placing innovation front and centre in the government's pitch to citizens and eventually voters.
Mark Henderson, Editor
Opinion Leader: Paul Dufour
The provinces, the feds & national S&T building
By Paul DufourWith the announcement in March that the Quebec government was shutting down its long-time science advisory body, the Conseil de la science et de la technologie (CST), a productive and decidedly public chapter in Canadian science policy efforts has come to an end (R$, April 9/10). The last of the original science advisory councils, the CST has been an important contributor to the debate on innovation in that province for almost 30 years, as well as playing a critical role with its other Canadian counterparts to help shape a larger policy agenda for S&T across the country.
Indeed, along with 11 other advisory councils, including the federal National Advisory Board on S&T (NABST) and the Science Council of Canada, the CST was a key player in the National Forum of Science and Technology Advisory Councils founded in 1989. That forum had a mandate to "examine issues affecting Canada`s ability to develop and apply science and technology; and to formulate advice to influence Canadian's national and provincial science policies for the enhancement of the Canadian economy."
There were many attempts at strengthening pan-Canadian science, technology and innovation since the early 60s, but with the arrival of the Progressive Conservative Mulroney administration in 1984, a concerted effort began in national consultation on S&T, involving all key sectors, especially the private sector. How did this come about?
The nation-building exercise was kicked off by the release in February 1985 of a working paper by the federal minister of state for Science and Technology (MOSST) — in part the result of a federal-provincial meeting of ministers responsible for S&T held in Calgary. In addition to a series of statistical profiles of Canada's S&T performance, the report brought forward a discussion of four key themes (by now perennial): increasing private sector investment in innovation; accelerating the rate of diffusion of technology; redefining the role of government R&D; and recognizing the importance of academic R&D.
A major national forum sponsored by the federal government and hosted by the Science Council of Canada took place in Winnipeg in June 1986. During his opening speech, the MOSST minister indicated that he was looking for views on how the $4.2-billion federal S&T envelope could be more effectively spent to forge better linkages between universities, research institutes, colleges, private sector firms, government labs and schools.
The minister had earlier requested the Science Council of Canada to undertake an evaluation of the effectiveness of government funding of private sector R&D in Canada. That report noted that government was underfunding private sector R&D when compared to other countries, but more importantly warned that R&D was just one element of the overall innovation process. It also noted that governments were not relating Canada's overall R&D policy within the context of a coherent set of sectoral strategies (this may resonate given the current review exercise of R&D spending underway at the federal level).
On March 4, 1987, prime minister Mulroney delivered a major address on R&D at the University of Waterloo. The speech was an open challenge to the private sector to increase its R&D efforts, and to redouble efforts to transfer technology out of university and government labs into industry. Mulroney closed with an appeal to all stakeholders to understand how Canada's technology can strengthen national sovereignty and territorial integrity in such areas as the Arctic and protecting the country's environmental heritage. NABST —chaired by the PM —had also been announced earlier to give him guidance on key S&T policy issues. On March 12, the National Science and Technology Policy was signed in Vancouver by the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for science and technology. The policy (the first-and last- of its kind in Canadian history) outlined six objectives:
* improving industrial innovation and technology diffusion
* developing strategic technologies
* ensuring the necessary pool of highly qualified people
* supporting basic and applied research and development
* dealing with the impact of technological change in society
* promoting a more science-oriented culture
To implement these objectives, a Council of Science and Technology Ministers (CSTM) was established and an action plan was developed to push forward each of the areas identified in the national policy. The federal response to this policy was InnovAction. Subtitled "a Canadian Strategy for Science and Technology", the five-track strategy put forward $100 million in support of a federal microelectronics strategy; a new technology centres policy for the management of key federal labs and external technology centres aimed at promoting technology diffusion; funding for the Networks of Centres of Excellence (NCE); a Canada Scholarship Program for undergraduate students; new funding for unsolicited proposals program for government procurement; increased funds for the Industrial Research Assistance Program (IRAP); and, an increment to the matching policy funding for university research.
Further, a decision framework for S&T in the government's management of S&T activities was announced. Prepared by MOSST at the request of the PM, the framework was designed to assist science-based departments and agencies to manage their S&T activities. It was intended for use as the basis for an annual overview of federal S&T strategic directions for cabinet and NABST.
In November 1987, the CSTM presented a discussion paper on Canada's R&D efforts to the First Ministers' Conference in Toronto. The paper suggested a number of steps that ministers could take to improve the situation. Among these was that the concept of a national NCE should be given careful consideration and R&D priorities within industry be developed on a sector-by-sector basis. The last meeting of the CSTM took place in 1992 in Ottawa. The discussions included matters such as improving access to Environment Canada's Green Plan, the Canadian Space Agency's future directions; and whether to form a national network on software engineering.
While other major policy exercises were also conducted during that period, the political momentum generated by the pan-Canadian efforts to strengthen national S&T continued. Federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for research, science and technology met from time to time. At the penultimate Quebec City meeting of this group in 2001, the co-chair Brian Tobin, federal minister of Industry, and Pauline Marois, Québec's minister for Research, Science and Technology, led the debate on how Canada could move its R&D expenditures to GDP ratio from 15th to 5th by 2010.
Other issues were also addressed including the impact of the new Canada Foundation for Innovation on the provinces, a report from the Québec CST on the status of nanotechnology, implementation of a national broadband strategy, provincial funding for Genome Canada's regional centres, and a major discussion on the issue of indirect costs of federally funded university research and commercialization of university research. Ministers were also briefed on the proposal for a Canadian Academies of Science.
Several principles for future interaction recognizing the differing jurisdictions, responsibilities and priorities within the federation were also debated. Finally, a commitment was made to develop a federal-provincial-territorial network for communication and information exchange on research, S&T and innovation.
The federal-provincial-territorial exercises of the 80s and early 90s were instructive on how S&T can contribute prominently to economic and social development. They also helped shape an international image of a concerted Canada. As minister of state for science and technology Frank Oberle said in 1986: "If European nations have found it necessary to join their efforts in order to use S&T to maintain prosperity, it seems that our ten provinces, (two) territories, and a federal government must also see the need to join efforts. Why should Canada not be able to match the efforts of the best?"
If Canada is to compete with the best and become a truly global knowledge power, leadership in federal-provincial-territorial cooperation at the highest levels in science and technology surely matters.
Paul Dufour is a veteran observer of Canadian science policy. He can be reached at paulicyworks@gmail.com.
To the Editor
2010-05-13
To the Editor,
After reading your story on the results of NSERC's 2010 Discovery Grants competition in the April 23/10 edition of RE$EARCH MONEY, I have a few concerns that I wanted to bring to your attention.
The article presents the facts clearly, but only tells part of the story. Beginning with the headline, it overemphasizes the change in success rates, leaving the impression that this represents a failure in the new process. This is not at all accurate. I believe the most important story coming out of this competition is that NSERC has changed the peer review system in a way that more effectively rewards excellence when and where it is to be found. The fact that the system is now flexible enough to quickly ramp up funding for rising stars gets lost in the article, as does the point that the funding level of a grant is more clearly linked to the applicant's productivity.
I believe that the paragraph that begins with, "It is worrisome," attempts to link two different ideas, and reinforces the message that something is not working well in the new process. I am not worried about the results. It's true that our current practices will result in a larger pool of unsuccessful applicants developing over time. This is a consequence of achieving our goal of supporting the most productive researchers in Canada at levels that are internationally competitive. Any of the unsuccessful applicants can return the following year with a proposal, which can be funded provided that it is sufficiently strengthened to meet the bar of excellence set by their peers. This was the case for nearly one in three of this category of applicants in the 2010 competition. Again, the central point is that all those who meet the standard of excellence will receive a Discovery Grant, and those scientists will be well positioned to be world class researchers of which Canada may be very proud.
Isabelle Blain
VP, Research Grants and Scholarships Directorate
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Grand Challenges Canada
New fund boosts Canada's efforts to align S&T with international development
A new organization devoted to fusing S&T and innovation with Canada's international assistance efforts has chosen point-of-care diagnostics as the first of five major challenges to combat health challenges in the developing world. Funded through the recently established Development Innovation Fund (DIF), Grand Challenges Canada (GCC) will receive $225 million over five years to develop and implement solutions through the integration of scientific and technological innovation with social and business innovation.
Modelled along the lines of the Canada Foundation for Innovation and the Gates Foundation's Global Challenges Program, GCC is a partnership between the International Development Research Centre (IDRC) and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). Hosted at the McLaughlin-Rotman Centre for Global Health and arm's length from government, the independent, not-for-profit organization will also work closely with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which has spearheaded similar work through its Global Health and Global Development initiatives.
"The model is pretty innovative to have us outside of government but linked to the international development and international assistance envelope," says Dr Peter Singer, who will serve as GCC's CEO. "This is a nice example of open institutional innovation … combined with a novel, purpose-built organization. It's a whole-of-Canada approach to complex, important challenges."
With IDRC as the government lead on the DIF, GCC will leverage that agency's 40-year track record of building science and research capacity in the developing world. CIHR will be responsible for the peer review of competitions for the five grand challenges, which will be fully rolled out over the next two years. The presidents of both organizations will sit on the GCC's 10-member board of directors (see chart).
GCC defines a grand challenge as a specific barrier that needs to be removed to alleviate a key health problem plaguing the developing world. An estimated nine million children in the developing world die before the age of five and diagnostics could save more than 100,000 lives a year from malaria alone and eliminate millions of unnecessary treatments.
GCC's initial focus is to identify, fund and support scientific, social and business innovation relating to point-of-care diagnostics. A $12-million request for proposals was launched simultaneously with the May 3rd announcement of the organization's creation and closely follows a $30-million RFP that the Gates Foundation launched.
combines resources with gates foundation
While both RFPs are in support of point-of-care diagnostics — an area considered neglected but with high impact potential — the GCC and Gates RFPs differ in several ways. Whereas the Gates Foundation RFP is geography neutral, the GCC RFP is focused specifically on the developing world, includes an additional category of implementation research and can support development workshops at the letter of intent stage. Expertise within the developing world will be supported where required with Canadian expertise augmenting that talent to fill gaps when they emerge.
"There will be a $42-million community of innovators working on this problem. It's a plug-and-play approach … This is innovation at the coal face. We need to be part of a community and at a global standard of excellence," says Singer, adding that diagnostics is a necessary prelude to treatment. "
Perhaps the most novel aspect of GCC's strategy is the integrated nature of its approach for addressing health issues in the developing world. A three-step process is used to identify challenges, support research and innovation initiatives, as well as seek private sector and philanthropic individuals for investment to make the solutions broadly available. Singer says the integrated strategy marks a significant departure from the way developed nations typically provide assistance to developing countries and puts Canada at the forefront of a fresh approach that helps build research capacity in recipient countries in collaboration with Canadian expertise.
"We think about integration right up front … The sweet spot is between the three types of innovation (scientific and technological, social and business) and bringing innovation to each. We're also innovating our approach to innovation in the types of challenges we pick and the projects we fund," says Singer. "May 3rd (GCC's launch date) may prove to be an exciting moment in our country and our ability to do our part in the developing world."
Singer credits the government for the creation of the DIF in the 2008 Budget, signalling its intention to break with past practices. Certainly the size of GCC's budget has gotten the attention of many, which dwarfs any previous programs linking innovation with international development.
While the features of GCC are similar to programs run by the IDRC, there are significant differences. One is simply its scale. With a budget that averages out to $45 million annually, GCC is far larger than the 16 to 18 programs currently managed by IDRC, which range between $5 million and $15 million. Indeed, GCC boosts IDRC's allocation from $165 million to $210 million, an increase of nearly one third.
"GCC is also focused much more heavily on the hard sciences angle than the programs we tend to support," says Rohinton Medhora, IDRC's VP programs. There's also the partnerships between research teams in Canada and the developing world which will lead to the creation of a global network of researchers focused on global health."
Medhora says the launch of GCC has created a lot of excitement within IDRC as it provides a perfect complement to the organization's mandate and anticipation for what such a large and ambitious program can deliver. But he says that excitement is also tempered with some caution.
How well GCC does in addressing key health challenges will determine whether the program has a life beyond its current lifespan.
If it performs best-in-class in Canada and internationally then it should have a life beyond five years. Our responsibility is to to perform," says Singer. "We need to keep a focus on the ones we seek to serve."
R$
| |
|
Ontario gov't launches $161-M life sciences strategy; medical devices among big winners
By Debbie Lawes
Ontario has set its sights on becoming a top-tier global cluster for life sciences with a new strategy designed to attract global product mandates and clinical trials, despite a climate of fierce international competition, tight credit and volatile markets. Released April 30, the $161-million Life Sciences Commercialization Strategy includes new funding for clinical trials and bioscience companies, and an emphasis on collaboration and streamlined programs in an effort to grab a larger slice of the $100-billion global life sciences research pie.
"The first thing that impresses me about the strategy is its comprehensiveness," says Russell Williams, president, Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies (Rx&D). "There's a lot more to do but it's certainly a recognition of the issues and a very solid attempt to respond to them."
The strategy combines both existing and new initiatives. The lion's share of the money — $114.6 million — is allocated to the Global Leadership Round in Genomics & Life Sciences, $100 million of which was announced in Budget 2009 (R$, May 19/09). Most of these awards were made in April, including $97.5 million for 15 projects in Toronto and Hamilton and $8.1 million over five years for the International Barcode of Life.
"The current economic situation obviously constrained some of the choices we were able to make," says Ryan Lock, acting director, Access to Capital and Business Development Branch at the Ministry of Research and Innovation. "But (life sciences) is still an important area of focus and the commitment is there on the part of the government to continue investing in this area as best we can given the current circumstances."
The big winner for new funding is the Toronto-based Health Technology Exchange (HTX), which receives $21.4 million over five years to encourage partnerships between small-and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), multinationals, health providers and research institutions to develop medical and assistive technologies (MAT) for global markets. HTX had requested $35 million, but the reduced amount is still nearly three times more than its previous provincial allotments.
"We're happy to get it in these tough times," says HTX president/CEO Dr. Morris (Mickey) Milner. "We're hoping the government will be more forthcoming once we show some real meaningful results over the next three to five years."
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The HTX funding is the largest investment in life sciences companies since the province's $150-million Biopharmaceutical Investment Program, which is winding down and no longer accepting applications. Unlike the BIP, which primarily provided conditional grants for late stage research and advanced manufacturing, HTX will award performance-based loans, up to 50% of the project costs, to support SMEs in early and later stage product development, technology implementation and international sales and marketing.
HTX is also directing $7.8 million towards its Ontario Flagship Program to provide loans, up to 15% of project costs, for multinationals that carry out product development in the province.
"We want to create partnerships between the smaller and larger companies, because the big companies have the distribution networks, marketing capabilities, regulatory expertise — all the important things you need to get a product into the market," says Milner.
Reversing the tide for clinical trials
Strengthening Ontario's capacity to conduct clinical trials through streamlining and less red tape is another priority in the strategy. It directs $17 million for new infrastructure for clinical trials and investigational testing, including:
* An Ontario Clinical Trials Fellowship Program, with matching industry funds;
* Expanding capacity at McMaster Univ's Population Health Research Institute to support management of phase IV clinical trials on a global scale; and,
* A new province-wide coordinating infrastructure to streamline administrative processes and ethics reviews across multiple clinical sites.
Of all the items in the strategy, Lock says this one is getting the most positive feedback from industry. "There's a lot of interest in that particular piece and how it's going to move forward, so the government wants to get it right." Williams adds that it's timely and costly, for example, to have an ethical review board for every location in a multi-site clinical trial when a single review would suffice.
The Ontario strategy also includes one-time financing of $7 million for Ontario bioscience companies, an idea pitched by the Ontario Bioscience Industry Association. MRI held a consultation with industry representatives May 21 on the potential design of the program.
One of the four pillars of the strategy is improving international marketing and promotion, which is why the province decided to launch the strategy on the eve of the 2010 Bio International Conference in Chicago. MRI minister John Milloy and Sandra Pupatello, minister of economic development and trade, attended the event.
"The reality is that most of the private investment capital that supports the research activities that take place in Ontario comes from beyond our borders. So when we're talking about pharmaceutical companies and venture capitalists, it's incumbent upon the government to work with local stakeholders to do everything we can to attract them to Ontario," says Lock.
Ontario premier Dalton McGuinty and Pupatello left today for the Middle East where they will be shopping the strategy in Israel, the West Bank and Lebanon as part of a trade mission to promote life sciences companies, attract investment and strengthen cultural ties.
R$
Industry Canada collaborates to release first-ever report on product design & development
Product design and development (PD&D) is a critical $38.6-billion industry in Canada that far outperforms the economy in terms of growth, according to a first-ever report on the industry. The largest investing sectors in PD&D are industrial electronics, motor vehicle, chemical, machinery, aerospace, motor vehicle parts and primary metals, accounting for $22.3 billion or 57.6% of all activity in 2008.
Produced by Industry Canada in collaboration with The Design Exchange and Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, State of Design: The Canadian Report 2010 found that Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver and Calgary dominate the PD&D industry and that it has outperformed the Canadian economy by 60% between 1999 and 2007. A small domestic market means much of the industry's services are exported and have an export intensity 2.25 times greater than that of its US counterpart.
PD&D activity is considered a crucial component of the innovation process that's often under-appreciated, possibly due to the small size of the vast majority of firms which tend to range between 1 and 19 employees, although the overall industry employs 225,000.
The PD&D process is a cycle of continuous improvement driven by shortening time-to-market and customer preferences and its adoption is seen as an essential tool for addressing the needs for product innovation and improved business performance. The report found that the two main challenges facing the industry are the gap between design and engineering departments to ensure that customer needs carry through to the end product, and making the PD&D process seamless with minimal time and expense modifying the design.
The report defines PD&D as a six-stage cycle beginning with assessment of opportunity, strategize (resource assessment and design research), conceptualize and develop (mock-up, product evaluation, modeling, prototyping/testing, refinement), implement and product launch.
"The PD&D service industry is a technologically vibrant part of the Canadian service economy that supplies critical information services to other sectors, notably manufacturers, distributors, and retailers," states the report. "PD&D serves as a link between creativity, innovation and commercialization."
The industrial electronics sector is the biggest PD&D investor at $5.4 billion in 2008, and it's also one of the most intensive, with PD&D outlays representing 28% of sales. Like many other sectors, the large majority of the industrial electronics PD&D is conducted in-house. An exception to the trend is motor vehicle PD&D, which outsources 76% of its activities. Nearly all of the motor vehicle sector's outsourced PD&D are engineering services required to integrate new product line requirements with partners in the supply chain.
The economic crisis reduced the amount of outsourcing investment by firms but they are forecast to bounce back to 2005 levels by 2012.
Protecting intellectual property rights (IPR) — secrecy, confidentiality agreements, patents, etc — is becoming increasing important as the pace of globalization accelerates. The report says one way to ensure IPR protection is to assign IPR to the PD&D service provider for the duration of the contract and then transfer it back to the firm upon completion.
Virtual product development and rapid prototyping are becoming increasingly common as firms seek to adopt advanced PD&D technologies to respond to the challenges of product innovation. PD&D processes include concurrent design/engineering, cross-functional design teams and e-based design and engineering processes. The report can be found at: www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/dsib-dsib.nsf/eng/h_oq01776.html.
R$
Government seeks stakeholder input for development of digital economy strategy
The federal government has given the information and communications technology (ICT) sector less than 10 weeks to respond to a discussion paper that will lay the groundwork for a Canadian digital economy strategy after months of signaling its intention to move on a file considered critical to future productivity and competitiveness.
The consultation paper was released by Industry minister Tony Clement on May 3rd in Stratford ON at the Canada 3.0 conference, with a deadline of July 9th to submit responses. The document uses the terms digital technologies and ICT interchangeable and outlines the current and projected context and environment for digital technologies.
Canada is considered to have a strong foundation of established companies, research institutions, and human skills but the document points to weaknesses (such as weak adoption of ICT), low visibility of Canadian content and the need for next-generation networks) that the forthcoming strategy intends to address.
New copyright legislation has been developed and awaits introduction in Parliament and Budget 2010 provided funding to roll out broadband access to rural and remote communities. But the government expects the private sector to take the lead in developing a more vibrant digital economy and the consultation paper poses five challenges for which it is seeking input:
* Boosting capacity to innovate
* Building digital infrastructure;
* Growing the ICT industry;
* Increasing Canadian digital content;
* Increasing digital skills.
Canada's main lobby group — the Information Technology Association of Canada — has welcomed the government's offer to participate in roundtable discussions and points to its own submission to the issue — Upping Our Game: A National ICT Strategy for Canada — released in July/09 (http://www.itac.ca/uploads/news/ITAC_09_Review.pdf).
While Industry Canada has the lead on the digital economy strategy, it is collaborating with the departments of Human Resources and Skills Development and Canadian Heritage and Official Languages which represent the skills and content aspects of the strategy.
The government contends that Canadian competitiveness in ICT must occur or the country will be surpassed by other nations developing similar strategies.
R$
CERC program shows that Canada is serious in attracting world-class research expertise
Unprecedented media coverage of the winners of the inaugural competition for the Canada Research Excellence Chairs (CERC) program has thrust Canada's attempts to build world-class targeted research expertise into the public consciousness. The May 17th announcement was spread across the country generating local, national and international attention for the 19 winners who were each awarded $10 million over seven years to pursue cutting-edge research in areas selected by the government as critical to Canada's development as a knowledge-based economy.
The program's success in attracting the world's best researchers in key disciplines has been embraced by provincial governments, individual institutions and the private sector, all of which are sweetening the award with funding of their own. Once leveraged funding is factored in (of which just $20 million comes from industry), CERC will deliver a $600-million plus wallop, making it among the most lucrative research chairs awards in the world.
"(The media coverage) has been great. It's been pretty uniform across the country," says Michelé Boutin, executive director of the Canada Research Chairs program with responsibility for CERC. "I don't think we were expecting to be picked up so much. It's fantastic."
Announced in the 2008 federal Budget, the CERC competition whittled down 135 proposals from 41 universities to a short list of 40 proposals that corresponded to the four priority areas outlined in the 2007 federal S&T Strategy and the sub-priorities established by the Science, Technology and Innovation Council (April 30/09). The CERC chairs were distributed as follows: information and communications technologies (4); health and related life sciences and technologies (6); natural resources and energy (4); and, environmental sciences and technologies (3). The latter included one in automotive technologies, as prescribed by the government.
The final phase of the competition experienced considerable blowback from institutions where the successful researchers were being recruited, resulting in 19 out of 20 chairs being filled. Both the Univ of Toronto and McGill Univ lost two chairs when their recipients declined to accept the CERC awards, resulting in the latter institution failing to secure a single CERC.
"It was a bidding war and it put pressure on the institutions from which they were being drawn. Some put up a stiff fight to maintain those people," says Derek Burney, a former senior civil servant and corporate executive who chaired the CERC selection panel. "When you go after a top-quality candidate, the existing employer ups the ante."
The extremely high quality of the candidates recruited through CERC is undeniable and promises to transform research in areas where Canada already possesses considerable strength. In almost all cases, researchers are accompanied by teams and will be augmented by graduate students using state-of-the-art research infrastructure. The majority of CERC research units will also include Canada Research Chair (CRC) holders, according to Boutin.
"It's very clear that the universities are building on investments made through the granting councils, the Canada Foundation for Innovation and CRC and they were able to attract key people," she says. "The average in leveraged funding was about $19 million in additional support and there have been more resources committed since then so it's likely higher than that."
The largely positive publicity surrounding CERC is a welcome relief from criticism aimed at the Conservative government's handling of the research and innovation files in recent years, with high profile attacks in international journals and from Canadian scientists concerned with stagnant support for the granting councils and cutbacks to programs related to climate change.
Not all media coverage has been positive, however, with many noting that the 19 successful chair holders were all men. The government was concerned enough with the gender imbalance among the winners and commissioned a study prior to the announcement to determine why women failed to secure a single chair. The CERC program has also come under fire from the Canadian Association of University Teachers, arguing that it "imposes new costs on institutions and diverts resources" — bankrolling so-called research stars while the larger research community is suffering from stagnant granting council funding.
R$
Top Danish expert recruited for CERC in Arctic microbiology and climate change
The arrival of Dr Soren Rysgaard at the Univ of Manitoba to assume a Canada Excellence Research Chair (CERC) in Arctic Geomicrobiology and Climate Change is spurring the formation a bi-national research institute between Canada and Denmark to examine the impact of climate change on glacial and sea ice.
Rysgaard's CERC leverages $38 million in addition funding from the U of M, the province of Manitoba, a private donor and industry for a total of $48 million over seven years, one of the largest concentrations of funding stemming from the CERC awards. It will also serve to marshal Canada's Arctic research resources through the U of M's participation in ArcticNet, which has received $45.9 million since its formation in 2003. ArcticNet is based at Laval Univ, which was also awarded a CERC for the Remote Sensing of Canada's New Arctic Frontier.
"This is a major enhancement to our programs here," says Dr Dave Barber, a Canada Research Chair holder at U of M in Arctic System Science. "We are merging our geoscience and environmental research groups here and they will merge with the Greenland Climate Research Centre (GCRC). We signed off on an MOU one week ago and the merged centre will be fully functional by April 2011."
The combined research institute will have a nearly 200 research personnel.
Rysgaard founded the GCRC in 2005 and sees the CERC chair position as an ideal way to bridge the pioneering research efforts of the two countries with a focus on the waters that separate them.
"There's so much energy flowing in Canada," says Rysgaard. "We want to merge Arctic research and make the program stronger across Canada. It's the way to go for the future."
Rysgaard plans to utilize CERC funding to further his research into microbial activity and chemical transformations within sea ice and ocean sediments.
R$
ORION makes the case for boosting Ontario network's speed to 100 Gb/second
Ontario's research and education network is hoping that a new report detailing the potential economic benefits of increased networking speeds will help to convince the provincial government to fund the lion's share of a major systems upgrade. The Optical Regional Advanced Network of Ontario (ORION) is seeking $20 million to purchase and install the necessary equipment — $16 million from the Ontario government and $4 million from its institutional partners.
A proposal was submitted to the government last fall as part of the normal budgetary funding cycle but was unsuccessful in the latest Ontario Budget. Last week, it released a report by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) detailing the benefits of the existing ORION network and projects even greater economic spillovers if the network is increased from 10 Gigabits/second to 100 Gb/s.
The vast majority of ORION's networking equipment dates back to 2001 and ORION has already issued a request for proposals to begin the renewal process. The $5-million RFP is jointly funded by ORION and CANARIE but ORION president Phil Baker says further upgrading is critical if the organization wants to continue fulfilling its mission of supporting economic growth and job creation.
"Our optical and much of our routing equipment needs to be replaced with the best we can afford. We are currently able to buy some equipment with 40 to 100 Gigabit capacity but not the interfaces which are pretty pricey," says Baker, who is stepping down from the presidency this summer. "100 Gigabit will become the new norm in five years or so and others like the US Internet II and some European networks are planning to go to 100 Gigabits."
The PWC study says network demands on ORION are expected to grow at a minimum of 30% annually in the near term as institutions and new areas of research such as digital media, smart infrastructure and imaging technologies drive demand upward. It says the existing ORION network has stimulated significant benefit for the provincial economy, facilitating 1,518 jobs in the province and 2,328 nationwide. Employment income equals $84 million provincially and $120 million nationally. If the upgrade is funded and completed, the economic value of ORION jumps to $291 million provincially over 10 years, providing a return on investment of nearly 36% assuming a 30% annual growth rate, according to PWC
| |
|
Baker says the growth experienced by ORION to date is greater than 40% and without an upgrade, bottlenecks begin to appear and bandwidth becomes limited.
"The pipe could get filled and traffic slowed down. We need to support bursty data," he says. "High performance computing and ORION are fundamental infrastructure so we need to think and present options to the government in new ways. The report is intended to encourage them (government) to think of modern infrastructure as something they need to invest in. Before I leave on August 1st, I'm hoping for a provincial commitment."
PWC interviewed 16 stakeholders for the study and found overwhelming support for the networking upgrade. Respondents said the network supported research across the innovation spectrum from discovery to e-education and commercialization.
"By facilitating advanced research and commercialization in Ontario, ORION is vital for the development and growth of knowledge-based industries, which depend on a highly educated workforce," states the report.
ORION connects 90 provincial institutions, providing high-speed networking to thousands of researchers and more than 1.5 million students. Those numbers will only increase as new institutions, research projects and applications come on stream, particularly those associated with the life sciences.
R$
News Briefs
Clean tech sole bright spot in dismal VC investment activity
A $53.8-financing of Montreal-based Enerkem to develop its clean waste management technology prevented the first quarter of venture capital activity in Canada from being a complete disaster. The financing accounted for more than 19% of the $276 million VC invested in Q1/10, which was down marginally from the same period last year. Clean tech accounted for $75 million or 26.9% of investment activity, second only to information technology which received $103 million for a 37% share (down from $164 million a year ago). Quebec continues to account for the largest share of VC investments with $101 million, although that's down from $153 million in Q1/09. The findings were contained in data produced by Thompson Reuters on behalf of the Canadian Venture Capital & Private Equity Association. The CVCA says that while the rate of decline in VC investments is declining, it continues to advocate for the adoption of its five-point commercialization support program that would see investment in Canadian VC funds as part of offset agreements negotiated with major government contractors. FMI: www.cvca.ca....
Genome Canada launches two targeted competitions
Genome Canada has launched a targeted competition for large-scale research projects. Up to $30 million is available for forestry and environment projects lasting up to three years, and an equal amount is available for a multi-sector competition targeting agriculture, fisheries and human health. Genome Canada will provide a maximum of $5 million for a single project, to be matched with funding from other sources. Genome Canada received $75 million in year-end money in the 2010 Budget to launch the targeted competitions and provide sustaining funding for the six regional genomics centres....
Ford signs on as GreenCentre Canada industry partner
The Ford Motor Co, Dearborn MI, has become the eighth industrial sponsor of Kingston ON-based GreenCentre Canada (GCC). A Centre of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (CECR), GCC works with industry and university researchers to develop green chemistry solutions to help reduce environmental pollution. Ford has already taken several steps to reduce its environmental footprint including wheat straw-reinforced plastic, soy-based polyurethane, post-industrial recycled yarns and post-consumer resins. It is also a partner in the Ontario BioCar Initiative....
Alberta and Li Ka Shing fund new virology institute
Hong Kong industrialist Li Ka Shing is contributing $25 million to establish the Li Ka Shing Institute of Virology at the Univ of Alberta, augmented by $52.5 million from the provincial government and Alberta Innovates. The institute will focus on developing and commercializing new drugs, vaccines and diagnostic tests to reduce the impact of viral infections on human health. Shing's donation is the largest in the U of A's history, made through the Li Ka Shing (Canada) Foundation. In 2007, Shing donated $25 million to found the Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute in Toronto, one of seven pre-selected Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (R$, October 29/07).
CFI's Leaders Opportunity Fund awards $27.9 million
The Canada Foundation for Innovation has announced the latest recipients of funding under its Leader's Opportunity Fund (LOF). Nearly $28 million has been awarded to support 118 projects at 32 Canadian research institutions. The funding includes $21.4 million in research funding augmented by $6.4 million through its Infrastructure Operating Fund. The LOF is designed to help institutions attract and retain key research personnel. The latest round will support 156 researchers....
Calendar
May 27-28 in Ottawa: Canadian Water Security: The Critical Role of Science. A national symposium presented by the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences. FMI: crowe@cfcas.org or 613-238-2223 #209....
People
Dr Gary Albach has been confirmed as the inaugural president and CEO of the recently established Alberta Innovates - Technology Futures after serving for several months on an interim basis. Albach, who moved to the province to become director of nanoAlberta, brings to the position more than 30 years experience in the British Columbia tech industry working on company start-ups, technology commercialization, policy and economic development. He founded the Univ of British Columbia's first spin-off (Vortek Industries) and co-founded several other firms including Cogent ChipWare Inc and TIR Systems Inc. He holds a BSc from the Univ of Waterloo, a PhD in physics from UBC and an industrial post doctoral fellowship (entrepreneurship) which he obtained at Anatek Electronics Ltd….
Dr Paul Lasko has been appointed scientific director of the CIHR Institute of Genetics. Lasko currently chairs the department of biology at McGill Univ and was the Molson chair of genetics from 2001 to 2007. He is also president of the Genetics Society of Canada and has served on adjudication panels for CIHR or the Canadian Cancer Society continuously since 1995. He has also chaired the Human Frontiers in Science Program Organization's Council of Scientists since 2007. Lasko replaces Dr Roderick McInnes, who was the institute's inaugural scientific director for its first 10 years….
Pardeep Ahluwalia has been appointed DG science policy integration at the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. Ahluwalia will have responsibility for science policy and strategy at the department as well as responsibility for the Federal Science and Technology Community Management Secretariat. Prior to the appointment, he was responsible for implementing the Species at Risk Act….