Fundamental Science Review

Chemistry

Faculty of Arts & Science

Two renowned University of Toronto's researchers are urging Canada’s federal political parties to articulate their plans to support Canadian science and innovation ahead of October’s federal election.

In a column for the Toronto Star, University Professor Mark Lautens, from the department of chemistry, and President Emeritus David Naylor, who chaired the federal government's fundamental science review, warn that Canada is falling behind the U.S., Germany and other industrialized nations when it comes to funding basic research.

Policy-makers should also be wary of common misconceptions about research, write Lautens and Naylor. That includes the belief that Canada already spends heavily on research – “Canada sits about 20th in the OECD [Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development] in research spending as a fraction of GDP,” the authors say – and that focusing on applied, as opposed to fundamental, research yields better innovation outcomes.

Supporting academic research creates “an environment that nurtures the next generation of innovators for both the private sector and civil society,” according to Lautens and Naylor.

“It’s mostly a bet on future talent. And it’s also a long-term investment that can pay big dividends – witness the revolution in artificial intelligence as the highest profile, most recent, Made-in-Canada example.”

Read the column in the Toronto Star

�鶹��Ƶ President Emeritus David Naylor calls for continued support of science: University Affairs

geoff.vendeville — Wed, 05 Jun 2019 15:47:15 +0000

�鶹��Ƶ President Emeritus David Naylor calls for continued support of science: University Affairs

geoff.vendeville Wed, 06/05/2019 - 11:47

Cutline

�鶹��Ƶ President Emeritus Dr. David Naylor spoke about the importance of investment in science at a research summit in Ottawa last month (photo by Tim Fraser)

Topic

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.”

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.”

Who needs science advice anyway? Governments do, says �鶹��Ƶ's Jim Woodgett

noreen.rasbach — Fri, 20 Jul 2018 16:57:35 +0000

Who needs science advice anyway? Governments do, says �鶹��Ƶ's Jim Woodgett

noreen.rasbach Fri, 07/20/2018 - 12:57

Cutline

Molly Shoichet, Ontario’s first chief scientist, was fired by the province's newly elected premier, Doug Ford (photo by Roberta Baker)

Jim Woodgett

Topic

The Conversation

Subheadline

There has been much consternation within the Ontario research community since Premier Doug Ford summarily dismissed the province’s first chief scientist, Molly Shoichet, after she’d been in the job for only six months.

The new government, elected on a populist wave in June, quickly fired the esteemed scientist – widely lauded for her biomedical engineering expertise and skill at communicating science – only a few days after being sworn in. Yet the new government has promised to appoint a replacement.

The move raises the question: What is the role of a “chief scientist” within government?

Spotty history

Canada has had a spotty history with such scientific advisory positions.

Arthur Carty was Canada’s first national science adviser, holding the position from 2004 to 2008, until it ended unceremoniously, as his office was largely neglected. Justin Trudeau’s government appointed Mona Nemer as chief science adviser in 2016. Quebec and Ontario have also created similar roles.

These appointments offer several benefits. These advisers are a signal to the public that governments care about science, they have held leadership roles for reports on scientific questions important to Canadians – including the Naylor Report on Fundamental Science, which reviewed the status of publicly funded research in Canada – and they’ve acted as ambassadors for international scientific co-operation.

Science connections

Around the world, governments engage various mechanisms to connect to scientific advice and knowledge, from dedicated offices to formal engagements of arms-length scientific bodies to, well, nothing.

The U.K., for example, has had a chief science adviser since 1964. It has been held by 13 people (all men) and reports to the prime minister and cabinet.

The connection between government and scientific advice in the U.K. goes back much further, however. Since the 18^th century, the government has referred questions of scientific import to the Royal Society for comment.

President Barack Obama named his science adviser, physicist John Holdren, more quickly than any first-term president since 1976, when the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy was created (photo by Charles Dharapak/AP)

In the U.S., the science advisory role has traditionally been filled by the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). (Its predecessor, the Office of Science Research and Development, was famously helmed by the first U.S. science adviser, Vannevar Bush, during the Second World War.)

There is currently no science adviser leading OSTP after 27 continuous appointments. Its current de facto head has a degree in political science. His predecessor was a lauded physicist and environmental scientist.

Vacant politics

The leadership vacancy in the OSTP is a political act, as it is in Ontario, raising the obvious question of whether the position of science adviser is a political one.

Science, per se, doesn’t care what the political leanings are of the prevailing, elected body. But a human is required to distil that information and provide it in an advisory capacity.

Peter Gluckman, New Zealand’s first science adviser (2009-2017), noted that, first and foremost, the role requires earning and keeping the public’s trust and to act as a broker rather than an advocate for science.

Indeed, many scientists think these roles are a conduit to more funding for research. That is neither true nor desirable. If a government thought that every time they sought the wisdom of their chief scientist it would be accompanied by a bill of goods, there would be little consultation.

After two large earthquakes struck Christchurch, New Zealand in 2011, Peter Gluckman, the country’s chief science adviser, worked with scientists to communicate future risks and calm the public (photo by Mark Baker/AP)

The decision to act upon evidence or set it aside is neither the responsibility nor competency of a scientific adviser. That decision rests solely with elected politicians who, in turn, should demand all of the evidence, whether it is supportive or not for their purposes.

But it pays to remember that advisers are human (and may inject some slant), and that politicians like those who make their decisions easier, even if that means receiving advice that is partially inaccurate or incomplete.

In other words, the role of science adviser is not as straightforward as many may imagine. But it must be.

Science, dismissed

For example, the OSTP leadership vacancy sends a clear political message: The current U.S. administration does not see value in a chief science adviser – a message amplified by severe depletion and neglect of OSTP staff and even its stub of a website.

There must be some input of science into decision-making in Washington, but the long-established structure is being dismantled and replaced by far less rigorous channels.

Canada’s chief science adviser, Mona Nemer, with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (photo by Adam Scotti/PMO)

At a time of ubiquitous fake information, pseudoscience and a King Canute-like resistance to global warming and the benefits of vaccination, the wanton dereliction of the OSTP can only be seen as intentional dismissal of science as being relevant to policy.

The wilful ignorance of often inconvenient scientific evidence is nothing new. But in the past its occurrence existed against the backdrop of a largely uneducated populace where science challenged the beliefs and desires of the powerful few, such as hereditary land owners and religious hierarchies.

Science is expensive, good advice is cheap

Modern society is now utterly dependent upon technologies based on physical principles few of us understand.

We demand progress in our quality of life that can only be fuelled by more research and development. New technologies, in turn, drive substantive changes within those same societies that demand them, causing economic and population disruption — along with eradication of more diseases, less poverty and longer life expectancy.

Along with the good, there are negative consequences as a result of scientific development, including urbanization, pollution, ecosystem destruction, species extinction, etc.

In this context, the role of science advisers to government has never been more necessary and their purity of purpose more essential.

Science advisers offer governments advice on a wide range of topics, from demographic changes in society to sustainable development to aerospace and biotechnology (photo of Shutterstock)

These roles require a person of the highest integrity, with the ability to communicate complexity, who appreciates and can absorb the remarkable breadth of science and is also familiar with the political process.

However, they must absolutely be aware of – and resist bias in – their advice. They must also require complete independence and respect for their role from their appointing governors. They must, first and foremost, be respected scientists who can bring the rigour of a scientific mind to government.

In this light, the OSTP vacancy could be seen as a positive outcome – an adviser who provides government with only what it wants to hear is more dangerous than having no advice at all.

Ontarians, on the other hand, are not there yet. They, and their elected representatives, should demand that the new chief science adviser must be at least as proficient, objective, rigorous, respected and gracious as Molly Shoichet.

That will be one difficult seat to fill.

Jim Woodgett is director of research at the Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute, University of Toronto

This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

'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

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

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

More funding for 'open' grant competitions needed to realize bold discoveries: �鶹��Ƶ researcher

Christopher.Sorensen — Mon, 07 May 2018 17:35:53 +0000

More funding for 'open' grant competitions needed to realize bold discoveries: �鶹��Ƶ researcher

Christopher.Sorensen Mon, 05/07/2018 - 13:35

Cutline

Mark Lautens is a University Professor in the University of Toronto's department of chemistry (photo courtesy of Mark Lautens)

Topic

Chemistry

Further boosting grant funding of basic scientific research, as recommended by Canada’s Fundamental Science Review, would allow younger scientists to take bigger risks in pursuit of bolder discoveries, University of Toronto researcher Mark Lautens tells the Hill Times.

Lautens, a University Professor in �鶹��Ƶ’s department of chemistry, told the Ottawa-based publication that “wide open” funding competitions are desirable because they allow researchers' applications to be evaluated based purely on scientific merit as opposed to government priorities.

“When you have a wide-open competition, there’s not somebody in the background saying, ‘this is what we want you to find,’” Lautens told the bi-weekly newspaper.

Lautens’ remarks appeared in a story in which researchers lauded the 2018 federal budget's investment in science and looked at potential next steps when it comes to fulfilling the recommendations put forward last year by the blue-ribbon panel chaired by �鶹��Ƶ President Emeritus Dr. David Naylor.

The panel, which analyzed the way research is funded in Canada, found per capita investment in fundamental science slumped in recent decades and recommended a comprehensive blueprint for making Canada a global research powerhouse.

Read the full Hill Times article

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

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.

�鶹��Ƶ welcomes federal budget’s boost for fundamental research

noreen.rasbach — Tue, 27 Feb 2018 21:46:51 +0000

�鶹��Ƶ welcomes federal budget’s boost for fundamental research

noreen.rasbach Tue, 02/27/2018 - 16:46

Cutline

(photo by Ken Jones)

Jennifer Robinson

Topic

Diversity

Meric Gertler

Dalla Lana School of Public Health

Vivek Goel

Calling it a “significant set of new investments,” the University of Toronto welcomed the multi-year provisions for research funding contained in the federal budget announced by Finance Minister Bill Morneau Tuesday.

“We welcome the government’s support for fundamental research, a critical element of a national strategy to advance knowledge and build Canada’s prosperity,” said �鶹��Ƶ President Meric Gertler.

The budget provides $925 million in new funding for investigator-led research through Canada’s three federal research councils over the next five years, including $354.7 million each for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research over the next five years, and $215.5 million for the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.

An additional $275 million is earmarked for a new Tri-Council fund that will support research that is “international, interdisciplinary, fast-breaking and higher-risk,” according to the government, and $21 million will be allocated to increase diversity in science.

Morneau said the 2018 federal budget “represents the single largest increase in investigator-led fundamental research in Canadian history.”

“As Canada’s leading research university, the University of Toronto is pleased to see the federal government augment funding for both operating grants and research infrastructure, helping us attract and retain top research talent from across Canada and around the world,” said President Gertler.

“We also commend the government for its commitment to increasing the diversity of researchers across the country, complementing longstanding efforts at �鶹��Ƶ,” President Gertler said.

Vivek Goel, �鶹��Ƶ’s vice-president of research and innovation, said he welcomed the federal government’s recognition of the work of Canada’s Fundamental Science Review, led by �鶹��Ƶ President Emeritus Dr. David Naylor. Goel also noted that the government acknowledged in the budget that it received a “strong and united message from Canada’s research community.”

The panel, commissioned by federal Science Minister Kirsty Duncan, found per capita federal investment in fundamental or curiosity-driven research had slumped in recent decades and made a comprehensive set of 35 recommendations.

The 2018 budget, which addressed several of the report’s findings, also includes:

The introduction of 250 new chairs through the Canada Research Chair program, with an investment of $210 million over five years to better support early-career researchers, while increasing diversity and creating more opportunity for women among nominated researchers.
$763 million over five years for scientific research infrastructure through the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). This includes $160 million for increased support to Canada’s nationally important research facilities through the foundation’s Major Science Initiatives Fund.
The government also proposes to establish permanent funding at an ongoing level of $462 million per year by 2023-24 for research tools and infrastructure through CFI.
$572.5 million over five years to implement a Digital Research Infrastructure Strategy to deliver more open and equitable access to advanced computing and big data resources to researchers across Canada.

“We applaud Minister Duncan for her ongoing support of research, which paved the way for today’s investments,” said Goel.

“These investments will revitalize the Canadian scientific research community and enable our �鶹��Ƶ researchers to continue to pursue outstanding work that is a benefit to all Canadians,” he said. “I thank all the members of our community for participating in efforts to raise awareness of their work and the need for support.”

Goel said the university is looking forward to continuing to work with the government on important issues such as scholarships for students and noted that the budget commits to consultations in the coming year on this topic.

The budget includes $231.3 million over five years for the Research Support Fund – a critical program that assists universities with the institutional costs of research, such as facility costs and technology transfer supports – but does not substantially increase the proportion of funding for these costs. The university will continue to work with government to ensure that the full costs of research are supported.

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