Naylor Report

Speaking two years after he and his colleagues warned about flat-lining investments in research, University of Toronto President Emeritus Dr. David Naylor recently reiterated the need for continued support of science to ensure the country’s future prosperity.

An article this week in University Affairs recounted a keynote speech in which Naylor urged the scientific community to be in “permanent campaign mode.” The summit, held last month in Ottawa, was organized by the Canadian Consortium for Research, an umbrella group representing 50,000 researchers and 650,000 students at universities, government labs and the private sector.

“We have thousands of people dying of measles because ignorance is an epidemic,” said Naylor, who led a blue-ribbon panel that looked at the state of science funding in Canada and made sweeping recommendations for reform.

“Anti-science, anti-research views are a contagious, malign force in the world. Research is about the entire country’s future – public, private sector and civil society. It’s about talent, not technology. It’s about people, not patents. It’s about creating a critical capacity in young people and not about commercialization.”

�鶹��Ƶ President Emeritus and honorary degree recipient David Naylor tells grads 'life is a team sport'

geoff.vendeville — Fri, 31 May 2019 14:15:13 +0000

�鶹��Ƶ President Emeritus and honorary degree recipient David Naylor tells grads 'life is a team sport'

geoff.vendeville Fri, 05/31/2019 - 10:15

Cutline

David Naylor, �鶹��Ƶ President Emeritus and former dean of medicine, receives an honorary degree from �鶹��Ƶ for “his outstanding service for the public good, excellence in the academy, and service to the University” (photo by Lisa Sakulensky)

Topic

Startups

Undergraduate Education

When he got the call offering him the job of president of the University of Toronto, Dr. David Naylor suddenly felt the weight of responsibility on his shoulders.

“It was one of the more acute attacks of imposter syndrome that I’ve had,” he told the Globe and Mail in 2005 after he was tapped to be the university’s 15th president.

He needn’t have worried. Few can claim to have made as great an impact on the university or – indeed – beyond it. Not only did Naylor take steps to boost �鶹��Ƶ’s research, innovation and student experience, he has been a driving force for increased public funding of post-secondary research and improved organization of health care right across Canada.

For “his outstanding service for the public good, excellence in the academy, and service to the University,” Naylor receives a Doctor of Laws, honoris causa, at the Faculty of Medicine’s convocation ceremony on June 3.

Watch David Naylor deliver his remarks:

It will be a homecoming of sorts for Naylor, who earned his medical degree at �鶹��Ƶ in 1978. He later went on to study sociology and social history at Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar. It was there that he met his future wife and fellow Rhodes Scholar, Ilse Treurnicht, the former CEO of the MaRS Discovery District who received an honorary degree from �鶹��Ƶ last year. Naylor even taught himself to speak Afrikaans, the language spoken in Treurnicht’s native South Africa, according to the Toronto Star.

Naylor eventually returned to �鶹��Ƶ to become dean of medicine, a post he held until 2005. It was during his tenure as dean that he rose to national prominence. He was asked to lead an inquiry into Canada's response to the SARS crisis involving all levels of government. The committee's report recommended an overhaul of Canada's public health system and spurred the creation of the Public Health Agency of Canada. His many accolades include being named an Officer of the Order of Canada and an induction into the Medical Hall of Fame.

(photo by Tim Fraser)

As �鶹��Ƶ’s president, Naylor sought to leverage the university's strength in research to enhance the student experience. The university introduced the One series of small-class learning opportunities, a co-curricular record and the President's Teaching Award for outstanding faculty. The Towards 2030 strategic planning exercise that took place under his watch laid out a long-term vision for a regional “University of Toronto system” characterized by three campuses with strong individual identities.

Naylor’s focus extended well beyond �鶹��Ƶ. He lent his expertise to a panel looking into the ways the federal government could foster innovation in health care, improve accessibility and reduce costs. More recently, he led a blue-ribbon group of experts reviewing how basic science is funded in Canada. The panel’s final report led to significant federal investments in fundamental research.

“More needs to be done to improve administration and governance of federal supports for research, and more investment is definitely needed,” Naylor said in an interview with �鶹��Ƶ News last spring.

“But extramural science and scholarship in Canada are in a much better place than was the case a year ago.”

David Naylor's message to the Class of 2019:

The mass media continues to mythologize individuals and individual accomplishment, and it’s easy to be seduced by social media into worrying more about your “digital brand” than your personal relationships. That’s a dangerous snare and delusion. Life is a team sport. The lion’s share of credit for accomplishments will sometimes still go to individuals. And yes, leadership matters. But solo geniuses are few and far between. Most of the things that will matter to the future of this complex world can only be accomplished through major collaborative efforts. In short, you will not only be judged by the company you keep. Your prospects for success, your resilience in the face of setbacks, your career trajectory, your happiness and your life’s legacy also depend on who you choose as travelling companions in the decades ahead – and how well you work with those companions you did not choose or would not have chosen.

Basic research 'at the root' of innovation in Canada: �鶹��Ƶ's Molly Shoichet

Christopher.Sorensen — Fri, 14 Sep 2018 19:48:19 +0000

Basic research 'at the root' of innovation in Canada: �鶹��Ƶ's Molly Shoichet

Christopher.Sorensen Fri, 09/14/2018 - 15:48

Cutline

�鶹��Ƶ University Professor Molly Shoichet emphasized the importance of funding basic research at an Economic Club of Canada panel discussion (photo by Chris Sorensen)

Chris Sorensen

Topic

Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering

Artificial Intelligence

Molly Shoichet

Technology

Canada is well on its way to becoming a country where knowledge and ideas, not oil or timber, are its most important resources – but there’s more work to be done before we truly become an innovation nation.

That was the message delivered by University of Toronto researcher and former Ontario chief scientist Molly Shoichet and two other post-secondary heavy hitters – Martha Crago, McGill University’s vice-principal of research and innovation, and Paul Davidson, president of Universities Canada – during an Economic Club of Canada event today.

Shoichet, who holds a University Professor designation in �鶹��Ƶ’s Faculty of Applied Science & Engineering, noted “things are really happening” in cities like Toronto and Montreal, which have both seen huge investments by Silicon Valley heavyweights and multinationals in recent years.

However, she cautioned the current tech boom – much of it focused on artificial intelligence and its myriad applications, from medicine to transportation – wouldn’t have happened without strategic government investments in fundamental research decades ago.

“It’s really important to recognize that research is at the root of innovation and commercialization,” Shoichet said during the lunch-time panel discussion.

“If you don’t invest in that research, we won't have those innovations and there won't be anything to commercialize.”

All three participants in the event, titled “Research, Innovation & the New Economy,” lauded the federal government for launching a federal panel in 2016, led by �鶹��Ƶ President Emeritus Dr. David Naylor, to review how basic science is funded in this country, and for responding to its findings with significant investments in fundamental research in its most recent budget.

Davidson, for his part, said visits to campuses of Universities Canada’s 96 member institutions left him with the impression that serious progress is being made. In particular, he cited growing efforts to foster collaboration between universities and business, as well as between universities themselves, through vehicles like the federal government’s supercluster initiative.

He also noted Canada is making progress when it comes to promoting equality, diversity and inclusion throughout the country’s higher education system.

“You can’t have excellence unless you’re inclusive,” he said. “That’s a big shift [in thinking].”

Yet, despite the changes, the panelists stressed the need for Canada to continue improving the country’s research and commercialization infrastructure, while simultaneously working to instil a culture of innovation among Canadians.

Crago, one of nine members on Canada’s Fundamental Science Review panel, emphasized the importance of continuing to fund young researchers in future budgets.

“What is working in this country is students are learning research and innovation by doing it,” Crago said. “They are the engine.”

She added Canada could also use more of a risk-taking culture like the one found in Israel, which has built one of the most successful tech sectors outside of Silicon Valley.

Shoichet, meantime, suggested there is a need for more research and development jobs in Canada, particularly in key sectors like pharmaceuticals. There was also a lengthy discussion about the best way for universities to work with both giant multinationals and small- and medium-sized businesses and startups.

One audience member – OCAD University President Sara Diamond – suggested Canada could do a better job at leveraging Canada’s strengths in fields like design, as well as arts and humanities more generally, to create an innovation sector driven by more than just pure science.

Agreeing, Crago pointed to the video game sector in Montreal, which is anchored by firms like France’s Ubisoft.

“They’re hiring all these people out of the humanities,” Crago said, “because they are among the most creative thinkers.”

Davidson concluded the discussion with a warning about complacency. He cited a 2017 survey by the Pew Research Centre that found nearly 60 per cent of Republican Party supporters believed U.S. colleges and universities were having a negative impact on America.

Just think of what these institutions have done for a country like the U.S., in terms of knowledge and innovation, over the past 70 years, Davidson said.

“All of that is at risk if we take it for granted.”

'It all starts with discovery research,' federal science minister says of Canada's innovation pipeline

Christopher.Sorensen — Thu, 07 Jun 2018 19:18:59 +0000

'It all starts with discovery research,' federal science minister says of Canada's innovation pipeline

Christopher.Sorensen Thu, 06/07/2018 - 15:18

Cutline

Kirsty Duncan, the federal minister of science, visits the lab of Elizabeth Edwards, a professor in �鶹��Ƶ's department of chemical engineering and applied chemistry (photo by Laura Pedersen)

Chris Sorensen

Topic

Our Community

Artificial Intelligence

When Kirsty Duncan, Canada’s federal science minister, wants to illustrate the importance of fundamental science – research driven by human curiosity, not potential outcomes – she often reaches for the example of deep learning.

The branch of artificial intelligence, which attempts to mimic the way the human brain learns, was pioneered by University of Toronto researcher Geoffrey Hinton and others and is now widely viewed as a potentially revolutionary technology that could transform Toronto – and Canada – into a global innovation hub.

But if it weren’t for public funding of University Professor Hinton’s research decades ago, when he toiled in obscurity on a field of inquiry many considered crazy, the breakthrough may well have happened somewhere else – or perhaps not all.

“There’s a lesson here: it’s investments in discovery research over decades,” Duncan said in an interview during a visit to �鶹��Ƶ’s campus this week, noting the federal government last year invested $125 million in a Canada-wide artificial intelligence strategy to capitalize on its early lead.

“We built the talent and now everything exists – but it all starts with discovery research.”

Yet, as a former researcher herself, Duncan was acutely aware that Canada’s research apparatus had suffered over the decades as budgets were cut and scientists muzzled. So, after being sworn into cabinet, she commissioned a blue-ribbon panel led by Dr. David Naylor, president emeritus of �鶹��Ƶ, to review the federal government’s support of fundamental science in Canada.

“That’s something that had never happened in our country before,” said Duncan, who is also minister of sport and persons with disabilities. “It had been 40 years since someone had looked at the whole ecosystem. What system goes un-reviewed in 40 years?”

The final report, issued last year, found per capita federal investment in fundamental science had indeed slumped in recent decades and recommended a set of sweeping changes – many of which were adopted in whole or in part by the federal government.

In the most recent budget, for example, Ottawa earmarked $925 million in new funding for fundamental research that will be handed out through Canada’s three federal research councils over the next five years. Another $275 million was earmarked for a new tri-council fund that will support “international, interdisciplinary, fast-breaking and higher-risk” research and $21 million to increase diversity in science. Duncan called it “the largest investment in research in our country’s history.”

She also emphasized the importance of the government’s decision to provide stable funding for the Canada Foundation for Innovation, which supports scientific research infrastructure.

Taken together, Duncan said the government’s investments have helped restore Canada’s reputation as a research powerhouse and are paving the way for future breakthroughs in everything from disease cures to green technologies. However, she added it's critical for researchers at institutions like �鶹��Ƶ to “keep telling their stories” in order to remind Canadians why their work is important.

“My goal,” Duncan said, “is to return research to its rightful place, ensure we support our hard-working researchers and evidenced-based decision making, and to embed science and research in government so it can never be dismantled again.”

How scientists will win the battle against the great challenges of our time: Professor Lewis Kay in the Globe and Mail

geoff.vendeville — Tue, 22 May 2018 14:28:16 +0000

How scientists will win the battle against the great challenges of our time: Professor Lewis Kay in the Globe and Mail

geoff.vendeville Tue, 05/22/2018 - 10:28

Cutline

"Think of your smartphone," writes University Professor Lewis Kay. "It wouldn't exist if scientists hadn't have been free to think about the nature of matter and free to play with semi-conductors back in the day."

Topic

Our Community

Biochemistry

Chemistry

Molecular Genetics

Scientists are fighting a war on many fronts, writes Lewis Kay, a University Professor appointed to the University of Toronto's departments of chemistry, biochemistry and molecular genetics, in the Globe and Mail.

Their battlefield is the laboratory, where they are combating microbes, neuro-degenerative diseases, climate change, future pandemics and many of the world's other complex problems.

Kay, also a senior scientist at SickKids hospital and the winner of both the 2017 Canada Gairdner International Award and the 2018 NSERC Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal, says victory depends on a commitment to education and curiosity-driven research.

“The history of science has proven that ultimately advances made in seemingly unrelated areas and on topics that don't appear to have any practical applications will shed light on the seminal problems of society,” he writes.

Read the full article in the Globe and Mail

David Naylor upbeat about research funding in Canada, gives kudos to students and researchers for #SupportTheReport

noreen.rasbach — Thu, 26 Apr 2018 18:34:59 +0000

David Naylor upbeat about research funding in Canada, gives kudos to students and researchers for #SupportTheReport

noreen.rasbach Thu, 04/26/2018 - 14:34

Cutline

�鶹��Ƶ President Emeritus David Naylor led the nine-member Canada's Fundamental Science Review panel (photo by dave via Flickr)

Jennifer Robinson

Topic

Dalla Lana School of Public Health

It has been a remarkable year for Dr. David Naylor, president emeritus of the University of Toronto.

A year ago, as chair of the nine-member Canada’s Fundamental Science Review panel, he unveiled a blueprint to strengthen the foundations of Canadian research at the request of federal Science Minister Kirsty Duncan. That review – the first of its kind in over 40 years – helped contribute to a historic bump in research funding contained in the recent federal budget.

He was also recently awarded the 2018 Henry G. Friesen International Prize in Health Research by the Friends of Canadian Institutes of Health Research for “major scholarly and policy contributions with a profound influence on health service delivery, public health and health research funding.”

�鶹��Ƶ News sat down with Dr. Naylor, who also served as the dean of the Faculty of Medicine before being appointed president in 2005, to discuss what’s next for him and to get his thoughts on the importance of health experts engaging with the public, the power of grassroots activism and the status of research in Canada.

What does winning the 2018 Henry G. Friesen International Prize in Health Research mean to you?

First, it’s a humbling honour to receive an award named for Dr. Henry Friesen – a great scientist who became a research leader with remarkable vision and persuasive powers.

Second, this is also an opportunity for me to thank and acknowledge the extraordinary people with whom I’ve worked on a variety of health-related and broader science policy projects over the last 30 years. In a rational and fair universe, this award would be shared with scores of co-recipients.

In the news release announcing this honour, Dr. Aubie Angel mentioned your “capacity to analyze and unravel the complexities of the Canadian health-care system, together with the ability to communicate it eloquently and lucidly.” How important is it for health experts to explain their work to the general public?

It’s very important, but I’d say there’s been a welcome shift over the last 20 years with much better communication by experts and also a dramatic improvement in the quality of health-related and science journalism.

What worries me more these days is the extent to which digital media have enabled charlatans to promote bad ideas – ranging from anti-vaccination falsehoods to bogus treatments for a wide range of conditions. We’re in a very challenging period of widespread populist sentiment and “truthiness.”

Experts are often viewed skeptically as just another group of vested interests. We don’t help our cause when our critiques of junk science come off as smug or patronizing.

I suspect the long-term solution is a stronger public grounding in critical thinking and scientific methods at every stage of education. But for now, experts need to find ways to set the record straight in a respectful and balanced way that doesn’t further alienate fellow citizens whose disillusionment with the status quo drove them in the first place to embrace “alternative facts” about health and illness.

Speaking of digital media, you were active on social media last fall and earlier this winter to encourage people to #SupportTheReport. What did you make of the grassroots campaign?

Being part of that grassroots campaign was an exhilarating experience because of the wonderful convergence of researchers from different institutions, career stages and disciplines.

Some colleagues have generously suggested the Fundamental Science Review report and recommendations were crafted in a way that made it easy for there to be a consensus in support of its implementation. It’s actually more the other way around. Our recommendations tracked closely not only to the analyses undertaken by and for the panel, but also to the phenomenal suggestions for improvement that we received from hundreds of research stakeholders.

Within weeks of the report’s release in April 2017, it became clear the major stakeholder organizations were standing down advocacy for specific priorities and instead getting behind the case for broad reinvestment to restore the foundations of Canadian extramural research.

That cause got additional momentum with the publication of an excellent report from the Global Youth Academy released in the summer of 2017. Two outstanding mid-career Canadian scientists – Julia Baum of Victoria and Jeremy Kerr of Ottawa – oversaw that independent analysis, and it yielded findings highly consistent with those of the Fundamental Science Review report.

Another unusual and very influential part of the campaign was strong engagement by countless front-line researchers and research leaders. Institutional executives and leaders of umbrella associations are highly credible advocates, of course, but the most authentic spokespeople on these matters are colleagues who dedicate their waking hours to doing research and mentoring research trainees.

How important were students in galvanizing the research community into action? And how did using your dog for your humorous posts come into being? People loved that dog!

The activism of graduate students and postdoctoral researchers may well have been the single most important factor that tipped the balance in favour of action and investment by the government of Canada.

The #Students4theReport initiative in its various forms – postcards, letters, visits to decision-makers, social media presence – is what brought home to federal politicians the hard reality that the future of Canadian science and scholarship was being put in jeopardy by gross underfunding, uneven grant-making policies, the proliferation of boutique initiatives, administrative inertia and weak governance.

As to Oscar the border collie, I have no idea why our family pet kept taking over my Twitter account, digging material out of my computer and posting irreverent commentary.

He’s a stubborn and highly literate canine, so I gave up and just went along with it. That’s why Oscar’s photo, not mine, turns up @cdavidnaylor.

Oscar sniffed out buried slide library of #supportthereport. Online x 48h at https://t.co/4p9sksml9K Please download & share freely pic.twitter.com/pQvBIeOSlS
— David Naylor (@cdavidnaylor) November 6, 2017

The federal government has said its recent budget contained a historic amount of funding for basic research in Canada. The funding was welcomed, but the government has yet to act on all of the recommendations in the Fundamental Science Review panel’s report. Are those recommendations now considered dead or is work continuing to ensure a fuller implementation? Is research now really on a better trajectory?

Budget 2018 was a giant step forward. It set a new course qualitatively for how the government of Canada intends to approach the extramural research realm, one that I think was widely welcomed by the research community.

I would also say the government of Canada responded in some way to the vast majority of our recommendations. Obviously, there were financial shortfalls.

The biggest source of concern to me is the pace and endpoint for new investments in funding to open grant competitions. I think the science minister and finance minister have received the same message from the research community at large, and I would be surprised if adjustments were not made on that front over the next couple of years.

In the case of personnel support for graduate students and trainees, the relevant Fundamental Science Review panel recommendation ostensibly went unfunded, but on page 89, the budget reads: “Over the next year, the government will be doing further work to determine how to better support students, the next generation of researchers, through scholarships and fellowships.” That’s a clear and encouraging signal.

Another recommendation that I believe is still alive was for creation of an improved oversight body to keep an eye on federal extramural support for research and innovation.

The government has already acted on our recommendation to wind down the Harper-era Science, Technology and Innovation Council and accepted our proposal in principle.

However, politicians and public servants are always a bit skittish about setting up high-profile standing committees that might issue reports that embarrass the government of the day. I would not be surprised then, if the new body’s mandate and authority ends up more limited than would ideally be the case – or if that one got postponed until after the election.

One recommendation that may be semi-comatose relates to federal grants to institutions that cover the so-called indirect or institutional costs of hosting research programs. We recommended a significant increase and got zero response. I now doubt there will much movement on that recommendation until the institutions, provincial governments and the government of Canada get together to figure out a fair cost-sharing formula. I hope that happens in the near future as part of renewed federal-provincial collaboration on research strategy – something we also flagged as necessary to optimize the national research eco-system.

Last, I’m encouraged by the fact that a five-year framework was delineated. Some pessimists have argued the five-year plan means research can’t get more support until Budget 2024, but I think that’s way off base.

The government has clearly shown a willingness to listen, act and invest. As I see it, the research community now has a multi-year period in which to continue making its case with a view to closing some of the gaps that remain.

And even if the government were to change after the next election, the two opposition parties have both signalled a favourable view of the Fundamental Science Review panel report and the direction taken on research in Budget 2018.

In short, more needs to be done to improve administration and governance of federal supports for research, and more investment is definitely needed. But extramural science and scholarship in Canada are in a much better place than was the case a year ago.

Are you currently conducting research, and if so what are you working on?

I don’t think what I do could really be called “conducting research” – it’s more like a random exploration of many areas of interest, all pursued in the company of smarter people who are doing most of the heavy lifting.

Among other topics, current meanderings include the Canadian content in the Gairdner prizes for health research, a review of the applications of deep learning in medicine/health care, analysis of the evolution of the federal share in funding provincial and territorial health-care spending and an exploration of the interplay of biological, behavioral and environmental risk factors for cognitive decline among Canadian seniors.

In closing, I understand the Friesen award comes with the expectation of the winner giving a talk. Do you have any ideas yet on what you'll talk about, or where your presentation will take place?

There are two components. One is a visit to Ottawa in November, with a mix of presentations to the Ottawa health research community and at the Canadian Science Policy Conference. That’s also an opportunity to meet with senior public officials and ministers. The other involves site visits to several universities across Canada. I’m still thinking through titles and topics.

The timing of the Ottawa visit is also auspicious. November 2018 is just about when Budget 2019 will be firming up. As you can imagine, I will take every opportunity on that visit to make the case for stronger federal support of extramural research – and Oscar will be barking in the background.

How this �鶹��Ƶ pediatrician came up with a solution to treat malnourished children around the world

ullahnor — Mon, 05 Feb 2018 05:00:00 +0000

How this �鶹��Ƶ pediatrician came up with a solution to treat malnourished children around the world

ullahnor Mon, 02/05/2018 - 00:00

Cutline

Dr. Stanley Zlotkin developed a micronutrient powder now used by UNICEF, UNHCR and the World Food Program in 60 countries. Initially called Sprinkles, the product also goes by Vitalita, MixMe and Nutromix (photo by Noreen Ahmed-Ullah)

Noreen Ahmed-Ullah

Topic

Global Lens

Entrepreneurship

Faculty of Medicine

Global

Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work

Millions of babies in the developing world are getting treated for malnutrition and anemia with a nutrient-packed powder sprinkled onto their food.

The pediatrician who developed “Sprinkles,” the fittingly named micronutrient powder, is Dr. Stanley Zlotkin, a professor at the University of Toronto and a clinical nutritionist at SickKids.

Zlotkin was first approached 20 years ago by UNICEF to try and figure out why global efforts to reduce iron deficiency in children were failing. An estimated 500 million children in the world suffer from anemia and iron deficiency.

Not only was he able to identify the problem – children and their parents didn’t like the taste or the stained teeth left by existing iron drops – but he went on to accept UNICEF’s challenge to produce an alternative.

Today, the micronutrient powder endorsed by the World Health Organization, is distributed by UNICEF, the World Food Program and UNHCR to an estimated 15 million children under the age of five, in 60 countries. In addition to Sprinkles, the powder goes by other names, including Vitalita, Bibomix, MixMe and Nutromix.

“They help address iron deficiency anemia and add vital nutrients to children’s diets to fuel the growth of their bodies and brains,” says Dr. Roland Kupka, UNICEF’s senior adviser on nutrition. “At UNICEF, we are grateful for Dr. Zlotkin’s leadership in developing this product, especially since it was UNICEF that requested him some 20 years ago to develop an effective approach to address iron deficiency anemia.”

UNICEF came to Zlotkin because of his unique credentials – he was a pediatrician and a researcher with a PhD in nutritional sciences. But the road to developing and distributing the powder to children who needed it would take a long time – nearly 10 years.

First, Zlotkin determined that fortifying food that parents made at home with rice, grains and lentils was the way to go. A powder that was tasteless and invisible, once added to a meal, would be more appealing to children and their parents.

He discovered that he could mask the taste of iron through a process called microencapsulation, and the product already existed on the market. Then came the packaging. Dining out one day, he noticed packets of salt and pepper and another light bulb went off.

“Many mothers in developing countries are illiterate and can’t read complex instructions,” Zlotkin says.

“They would simply have to be told to open the package and sprinkle it onto whatever food they were using to feed their infant. It had to be packaged with the right amount, otherwise it could be toxic. And because it’s the developing world, it would have to be inexpensive and simple to use.”

But after he developed the powder, UNICEF came back with an even more challenging bar to cross. Not only would Zlotkin need to make sure it worked, he needed to run pilot tests in various countries to ensure that parents would use it, find companies in those countries that could package the powder cheaply at high volume, and then he needed to develop a distribution model.

Initially Zlotkin and his research team would mix up batches of the powdered iron, zinc, folic acid and various vitamins in the kitchen at SickKids, after hours. Later, as he began running pilot tests in various countries like India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Ghana, Nigeria, Malaysia, Bolivia and Nicaragua, he met with manufacturers in those regions and showed them how to produce the powder in large volume.

Getting the money to start piloting the product was a hurdle.

“The challenge I had was finding funding for something no preliminary work was done on – I just had a good idea,” Zlotkin says.

USAID stepped in to initially launch a pilot in Nicaragua, then the U.S. Agency for International Development helped them start efforts in other countries like Ghana and India. The Heinz Foundation’s $500,000-a-year donation for five years, helped him scale up pilot projects in different parts of the world.

“It gave me the flexibility and speed to do research in ten different countries over a relatively short period of time,” he said. “That was probably one of the most important factors that allowed me to complete the research in a relatively short period of time.

“I thought naively if I did one really great study, published in a good journal, we could go back to UNICEF and say it works, take it on. Not true. What we found out was that the ministries of health in countries around the world said our children are totally different from, say, the children in Ghana. Doesn’t matter if you did it in Ghana, you have to do the study in my country too.”

In the end, the powder would have pilot trials in ten different countries – Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Mongolia, Bolivia and Guyana – all showing its success at treating anemia in children.

Eventually, an independent meta-analysis of the pilot tests and the powder’s success, and a distribution model developed by Zlotkin helped UNICEF give the green light. The endorsement from the World Health Organization (WHO) opened the product to other NGOs and the product becoming available in new markets.

“One of most important milestones in the development of micronutrient powders was the fact that WHO reviewed the literature on the prevention and treatment of mineral and vitamin deficiencies, including iron deficiencies because they realized there was nothing that was successful,” Zlotkin says. “They came out with a recommendation that if a country has mineral and vitamin deficiency or iron deficiency, they should use home fortification with micronutrient powders.”

Dr. Trevor Young, dean of �鶹��Ƶ’s Faculty of Medicine, praised Zlotkin’s research for improving the lives of so many children around the world.

“He has helped millions of children who suffer from anemia and malnutrition across the developing world,” Young said. “He has influenced public health globally by using an innovative approach to tackling a problem that has puzzled NGOs for decades – how to improve the health of children in the developing world.”

Zlotkin says he was in the right place at the right time, and the right person to develop the product.

“I was interested in minerals and vitamins, and I worked at an incredible university, an incredible hospital that has a great research institute where I was able to basically spend my time – and I could get paid a salary for this – doing research that had a clear value proposition associated with it. If I could get this right, it was going to improve the lives of lots of kids.”

For researchers like him, it’s the funding and opportunities that institutions provide that lead to great innovations.

Without significant research funding, Zlotkin says, he would not have been able to develop Sprinkles, and that’s why he’s such a strong supporter of the recommendations made by Canada’s Fundamental Science Review, which was led by �鶹��Ƶ President Emeritus David Naylor. The recommendations have called for a $1.3-billion increase in federal research funding over the next four years.

“As a researcher, I think it’s phenomenally important that there is a huge focus in funding research,” Zlotkin says. “We will not go from the health advances of 2018 to the health advances of 2028, 2038 and 2048 without having funding for research, and the funding should come from the government and non-commercial sources.”

Interested in publicly funded research in Canada? Learn more at �鶹��Ƶ’s #supportthereport advocacy campaign

And Canada has an even more important role when it comes to research that could impact the world and countries that may not be as prosperous as us, he says.

“Canada certainly as a wealthy, as a principled country of the world, has an obligation to continue and augment its funding for all kinds of basic, translational and population-based research,” he says.

“Given the fact that my research focuses on the developing world and of course I’m a Canadian researcher, I do feel that what affects children in the developing world also affects children in Canada. The world is a tiny place. Infectious diseases over the last 20 years that happen in the developing world can affect children in Canada, and the health advances of Canada can hopefully affect children in the developing world.

"So, I strongly feel that Canada has an obligation to support research that will affect children in the developing world, as well as Canadian children.”

Learn about another �鶹��Ƶ innovation – double-fortified salt adds iodine and iron to children's diets

�鶹��Ƶ's Barbara Fallon uses data to help front-line workers support vulnerable children

geoff.vendeville — Thu, 18 Jan 2018 05:00:00 +0000

�鶹��Ƶ's Barbara Fallon uses data to help front-line workers support vulnerable children

geoff.vendeville Thu, 01/18/2018 - 00:00

Cutline

Barbara Fallon is an associate professor in �鶹��Ƶ's Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work and Canada Research Chair in Child Welfare (photo courtesy of Barbara Fallon)

Topic

City & Culture

Faculty of Medicine

Subheadline

Thousands of forms describing cases of child maltreatment have come across Barbara Fallon’s desk.

For over 20 years, the associate professor in the University of Toronto's Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work has been gathering data, both provincially and nationally, to help front-line workers address the needs of kids in the child welfare system.

In one study, she and her co-authors found that just four per cent of maltreatment cases involved physical abuse requiring medical attention. They suggested child welfare services may be focusing on rapid intervention to prevent physical harm instead of a broader assessment of a child’s needs.

More recently, she and her colleagues have looked at the overrepresentation of First Nations children in care. The rate of child maltreatment investigations is more than four times higher among First Nations children, the researchers found, using data from 2008. “The root cause is colonialism,” she says.

Fallon gathers information knowing that behind the statistics are real children and families in need of support.

“The data that I collect represent a significant burden of suffering experienced by children and families who are identified to a child protection system or organization,” she says.

“I never forget that and try to be attentive to using the data to improve those conditions.”

A look at the sources cited in her research shows she doesn’t rely only on social science literature.

She draws on an array of medical research and collaborates with scientists like Dr. Steven Miller, head of neurology at SickKids and a professor of pediatrics in �鶹��Ƶ's Faculty of Medicine.

Miller says experts will typically stick to references within their field, but that doesn't work when it comes to complex problems such as child abuse and neglect.

Scientists have known for a long time that socioeconomic status is a key predictor of health.

“Not surprisingly, when we look at how populations of children who are at risk of development concerns, born prematurely or with congenital heart disease, we really need to think about the environment children are developing in,” he says.

“If we want to inform policy, we can’t look at a child’s development just from a health lens.”

A back-and-forth between social workers like Fallon and medical researchers like Miller wouldn’t be possible without sufficient funding. They both support Canada’s Fundamental Science Review, which recommends dedicating $1.3 billion more to research-funding agencies over four years. The panel, led by �鶹��Ƶ President Emeritus Dr. David Naylor, stresses that Canada has slipped in measures of research competitiveness.

Fallon says researchers still have much work to do to answer questions in her field, including why there is an overrepresentation of Indigenous and racialized children in care. She and her colleagues are gathering more data this year to delve into these important issues. She is the principal investigator for the Ontario Incidence Study, a sweeping review conducted every five years that collects information about children and families investigated by child-welfare services in every jurisdiction in the province.

“As the Naylor Report underscores, research is fundamental to unlocking many of the pressing societal issues we face including how to help families and children who struggle with multiple adversities,” Fallon says.

Interested in publicly funded research in Canada? Learn more at �鶹��Ƶ’s #supportthereport advocacy campaign

Natalie Zemon Davis on the importance of curiosity in humanities research

geoff.vendeville — Wed, 20 Dec 2017 18:06:37 +0000

Natalie Zemon Davis on the importance of curiosity in humanities research

geoff.vendeville Wed, 12/20/2017 - 13:06

Cutline

Historian Natalie Zemon Davis at her home in Toronto (photo by Laura Pedersen)

Geoffrey Vendeville

Topic

City & Culture

History

Humanities

Faculty of Arts & Science

Historian Natalie Zemon Davis has long been a nonconformist. In the 1950s, when it was fashionable to study the ideas or great figures of periods like the Enlightenment, she focused on the illiterate working classes – for her dissertation, she wrote about the printers and artisans in 16^th-century Lyons. Some of her contemporaries might have bristled at her unconventional approach, but she persisted and earned international acclaim.

In 2010, she won the Holberg prize, worth more than $760,000, awarded by the Norwegian parliament. She is “one of the most creative historians writing today,” the award citation says. Three years later, she received the National Humanities Medal from U.S. President Barack Obama.

How did she come to look at aspects of the past that were overlooked by other historians? Daring, a sense of wonder, passion – all these traits are essential to any kind of research, Zemon Davis says in an interview at her Toronto home. “That’s really something quite important: the unexpected, the surprise that satisfies or nourishes one’s curiosity,” she told �鶹��Ƶ News.

But researchers in any discipline would have trouble innovating or addressing gaps in their field without support. Zemon Davis has joined a chorus of experts, including Nobel Prize-winning chemist John Polanyi, urging the Canadian government to move on the recommendations of Canada's Fundamental Science Review. A panel, chaired by �鶹��Ƶ President Emeritus Dr. David Naylor, calls for a $1.3-billion boost in funding for university-based research over four years – an increase they say amounts to only 0.4 per cent of the government’s annual budget.

"The panel recommends the support of work that is not necessarily able to be commercialized right away or right away translated into something practical," Zemon Davis says. "It recommends the support of the work of young people who might be overlooked in the quest for number of publications. It supports the work of Indigenous people and especially the life and past of Indigenous people in Canada. These are marvelous ideas."

Interested in publicly funded research in Canada? Learn more at �鶹��Ƶ’s #supportthereport advocacy campaign

Academic research often has benefits that go far beyond a circle of experts. In addition to writing books, Zemon Davis has brought her work to a wide audience through film and theatre. In 1982, she consulted on the French movie, The Return of Martin Guerre, starring Gérard Depardieu. She wrote a book on the subject, the tale of a 16^th-century French peasant who abandoned his wife and lands – and returns later to discover an imposter has taken his place. “It’s such a dramatic, surprising story, so full of visual possibilities,” she told The New York Times in 1983. “I just thought, ‘What a marvelous way to bring this story to millions of people.’”

This year, she advised the Lebanese-Canadian playwright Wajdi Mouawad on his latest production, Tous des oiseaux, which opened in Paris’s Théâtre national de la Colline to glowing reviews. The play was inspired by Zemon Davis’s book Trickster Travels, a biography of al-Hasan ibn Muhammad al-Wazzan al-Fasi, a 16^th-century Muslim diplomat captured by Christian pirates, imprisoned by the pope, baptized and allowed to pursue a life of scholarship as a Christian.

Her research career may have taken a vastly different turn had she and her husband, math professor Chandler Davis, not received a surprise visit from the U.S. State Department long ago. During the Red Scare of the 1950s, the FBI traced a pamphlet criticizing the House Committee on Un-American Activities to the Davises.

Zemon Davis holds a copy of “Operation Mind,” the pamphlet criticizing the House Un-American Activities Committee, which got her in trouble with the FBI in the 1950s (photo by Laura Pedersen)

Agents came to their door and seized their passports. “All I remember is that it was frightening and crushing because I was three months pregnant with our first child, and I didn’t need this,” she recalls. Without her travel papers, she couldn’t return to the archives of Lyon to continue her research. Her husband was jailed for six months and, after his sentence, no American university would hire him. They were offered jobs at �鶹��Ƶ in the 1960s. Zemon Davis taught at University of California Berkeley and Princeton before returning to �鶹��Ƶ.

She didn’t let these events derail her career. Although the FBI could prevent her from going to France, they couldn’t stop her from completing her dissertation using materials in American rare book libraries.

“How the FBI Turned Me on to Rare Books” Read Zemon Davis's article in The New York Review of Books

Decades later, when she was fêted at the White House, the irony wasn’t lost on her. “The justice department building wasn’t that far away,” she says.

Whatever obstacles were thrown in her path, she says the love of her topic kept her going. “It’s the work, the theme, the people you’re writing about which are important,” she says. “If you keep working on it, and finding you’re getting results, then you just go for it.”

Public funding is needed to support the next generation of scientists: �鶹��Ƶ's Mark Lautens

Romi Levine — Tue, 19 Dec 2017 18:53:30 +0000

Public funding is needed to support the next generation of scientists: �鶹��Ƶ's Mark Lautens

Romi Levine Tue, 12/19/2017 - 13:53

Cutline

“The most important outcome of scientific research isn't patents or products," writes Mark Lautens. "It's people who can think and solve our toughest problems.”

Topic

Global Lens

Chemistry

Global