A Jan. 31, 2017 news item on ScienceDaily announces a new report from the US National Science Foundation’s (NSF) National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES),
The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) today [Jan. 31, 2017,] announced the release of the 2017 Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering (WMPD) report, the federal government’s most comprehensive look at the participation of these three demographic groups in science and engineering education and employment.
The report shows the degree to which women, people with disabilities and minorities from three racial and ethnic groups — black, Hispanic and American Indian or Alaska Native — are underrepresented in science and engineering (S&E). Women have reached parity with men in educational attainment but not in S&E employment. Underrepresented minorities account for disproportionately smaller percentages in both S&E education and employment
Congress mandated the biennial report in the Science and Engineering Equal Opportunities Act as part of the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) mission to encourage and strengthen the participation of underrepresented groups in S&E.
A Jan. 31, 2017 NSF news release (also on EurekAlert), which originated the news item, provides information about why the report is issued every two years and provides highlights from the 2017 report,
“An important part of fulfilling our mission to further the progress of science is producing current, accurate information about the U.S. STEM workforce,” said NSF Director France Córdova. “This report is a valuable resource to the science and engineering policy community.”
NSF maintains a portfolio of programs aimed at broadening participation in S&E, including ADVANCE: Increasing the Participation and Advancement of Women in Academic Science and Engineering Careers; LSAMP: the Louis Stokes Alliances for Minority Participation; and NSF INCLUDES, which focuses on building networks that can scale up proven approaches to broadening participation.
The digest provides highlights and analysis in five topic areas: enrollment, field of degree, occupation, employment status and early career doctorate holders. That last topic area includes analysis of pilot study data from the Early Career Doctorates Survey, a new NCSES product. NCSES also maintains expansive WMPD data tables, updated periodically as new data become available, which present the latest S&E education and workforce data available from NCSES and other agencies. The tables provide the public access to detailed, field-by-field information that includes both percentages and the actual numbers of people involved in S&E.
“WMPD is more than just a single report or presentation,” said NCSES Director John Gawalt. “It is a vast and unique information resource, carefully curated and maintained, that allows anyone (from the general public to highly trained researchers) ready access to data that facilitate and support their own exploration and analyses.”
Key findings from the new digest include:
The types of schools where students enroll vary among racial and ethnic groups. Hispanics, American Indians or Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders are more likely to enroll in community colleges. Blacks and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islanders are more likely to enroll in private, for profit schools.
Since the late 1990s, women have earned about half of S&E bachelor’s degrees. But their representation varies widely by field, ranging from 70 percent in psychology to 18 percent in computer sciences.
At every level — bachelor’s, master’s and doctorate — underrepresented minority women earn a higher proportion of degrees than their male counterparts. White women, in contrast earn a smaller proportion of degrees than their male counterparts.
Despite two decades of progress, a wide gap in educational attainment remains between underrepresented minorities and whites and Asians, two groups that have higher representation in S&E education than they do in the U.S. population.
White men constitute about one-third of the overall U.S. population; they comprise half of the S&E workforce. Blacks, Hispanics and people with disabilities are underrepresented in the S&E workforce.
Women’s participation in the workforce varies greatly by field of occupation.
In 2015, scientists and engineers had a lower unemployment rate compared to the general U.S. population (3.3 percent versus 5.8 percent), although the rate varied among groups. For example, it was 2.8 percent among white women in S&E but 6.0 percent for underrepresented minority women.
For more information, including access to the digest and data tables, see the updated WMPD website.
Caption: In 2015, women and some minority groups were represented less in science and engineering (S&E) occupations than they were in the US general population.. Credit: NSF
The Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA) is the leading voice of the nanotechnology industries. On behalf of membership across Europe and around the world, we support the development of nanotech innovations that improve the lives of consumers, preserve our environment and advance our world.
NIA and our Members are committed to the safe, sustainable and beneficial use of nanotechnology and nanomaterials across all industries. We believe in fostering a better understanding of nanotechnology’s important role in society and building a positive global environment for nanotech innovation.
The NIA has an opportunity for a person to join us from March 2017 and play a core role in our Brussels office plus European travel. The successful candidate will undertake tasks including:
· Support for our work within regulatory development for the nanotechnology sector
· Mapping and networking within the Brussels community associated with nanotechnology
· Support for NIA communications, including website redevelopment, plus event administration
· Contribute towards the publication of a nanotechnology report in Q3 2017
· Support for EC [European Commission] project delivery with the NIA team
· Secondment to Spanish research centre for a minimum of 1 month as part pf EC project – business and regulatory research activities
The candidate will have the opportunity to join a motivated small team and gain direct, in depth experience with industry actors in the tasks of delivering nanotechnology innovation within a robust regulatory framework. The candidate will develop a cv with task leadership
Minimum 6 month placement with possibility to renew for an additional 6 months
The internship is reimbursed – details provided on request
· Minimum degree level within nanotechnology or associated discipline
· Interested in regulatory development within technology sectors
· Minimum two languages including fluent written and spoken English
· Self-motivated and able to perform under pressure of deadlines and events
· Proficient with Microsoft Office, social media and website maintenance
· Strong work ethic and willingness to work across the NIA team
The Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA) is the sector-independent, responsible voice for the industrial nanotechnologies supply chains.
NIA supports the ongoing innovation and commercialisation of the next generation of technologies and promotes their safe and reliable advancement.
Through NIA’s constant involvement in a number of international organisations, members of the Nanotechnology Industries Association are represented on globally influential fora, such the OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials, and the OECD Working Party on Nanotechnology, as well as national and international advisory groups and standardisation committees, such as ISO/TC 229 and CEN/TC 352.
NIA was formed in 2005 in the UK by a group of companies from a variety of industry sectors, including healthcare, chemicals, automotive, materials processing, and consumer products. In September 2008, the NIA opened its international NIA office in Brussels (Belgium), whilst maintaining an independent UK-national representation through NIA-UK based in London. Globally the only industry-focused trade association in nanotechnology, NIA provides a uniquely consolidated perspective derived from a multi-disciplinary membership which operates across a wide range of markets and industrial sectors.
NIA Membership is made up of many varied companies, all of which at different stages of their commercial existence and with a variety of interests in the large range of technologies that derive their benefit from the nanoscale. In NIA, these companies have a representative association to:
create a clear single ‘voice’ on behalf of the industries’ views,
to interface with governments,
to be a source for consultation on regulation and standards,
I hinted in a Jan. 27, 2017 posting (scroll down abotu 15% of the way) that advice from Canadians with regard to an ‘American war on science’ might not be such a good idea. It seems that John Dupuis (mentioned in the Jan. 27, 2017 posting) has yet more advice for our neighbours to the south in his Feb. 5, 2017 posting (on the Confessions of a Science Librarian blog; Note: A link has been removed),
My advice? Don’t bring a test tube to a Bunsen burner fight. Mobilize, protest, form partnerships, wrote op-eds and blog posts and books and articles, speak about science at every public event you get a chance, run for office, help out someone who’s a science supporter run for office.
Don’t want your science to be seen as political or for your “objectivity” to be compromised? Too late, the other side made it political while you weren’t looking. And you’re the only one that thinks you’re objective. What difference will it make?
Don’t worry about changing the other side’s mind. Worry about mobilizing and energizing your side so they’ll turn out to protest and vote and send letters and all those other good things.
Worried that you will ruin your reputation and that when the good guys come back into power your “objectivity” will be forever compromised? Worry first about getting the good guys back in power. They will understand what you went through and why you had to mobilize. And they never thought your were “objective” to begin with.
Proof? The Canadian experience. After all, even the Guardian wants to talk about How science helped to swing the Canadian election? Two or four years from now, you want them to be writing articles about how science swung the US mid-term or presidential elections.
Dupuis goes on to offer a good set of links to articles about the Canadian experience written for media outlets from across the world.
The thing is, Stephen Harper is not Donald Trump. So, all this Canadian experience may not be as helpful as we or our neighbours to the south might like.
This Feb . 6, 2017 article by Daniel Engber for Slate.com gives a perspective that I think has been missed in this ‘Canadian’ discussion about the latest US ‘war on science’ (Note: Link have been removed),
An army of advocates for science will march on Washington, D.C. on April 22, according to a press release out last Thursday. The show of force aims to “draw attention to dangerous trends in the politicization of science,” the organizers say, citing “threats to the scientific community” and the need to “safeguard” researchers from a menacing regime. If Donald Trump plans to escalate his apparent assault on scientific values, then let him be on notice: Science will fight back.
We’ve been through this before. Casting opposition to a sitting president as resistance to a “war on science” likely helped progressives 10 or 15 years ago, when George W. Bush alienated voters with his apparent disrespect for climate science and embryonic stem-cell research (among other fields of study). The Bush administration’s meddling in research and disregard for expertise turned out to be a weakness, as the historian Daniel Sarewitz described in an insightful essay from 2009. Who could really argue with the free pursuit of knowledge? Democratic challengers made a weapon of their support for scientific progress: “Americans deserve a president who believes in science,” said John Kerry during the 2004 campaign. “We will end the Bush administration’s war on science, restore scientific integrity and return to evidence-based decision-making,” the Democratic Party platform stated four years later.
But what had been a sharp-edged political strategy may now have lost its edge. I don’t mean to say that the broad appeal of science has been on the wane; overall, Americans are about as sanguine on the value of our scientific institutions as they were before. Rather, the electorate has reorganized itself, or has been reorganized by Trump, in such a way that fighting on behalf of science no longer cuts across party lines, and it doesn’t influence as many votes beyond the Democratic base.
The War on Science works for Trump because it’s always had more to do with social class than politics. A glance at data from the National Science Foundation shows how support for science tracks reliably with socioeconomic status. As of 2014, 50 percent of Americans in the highest income quartile and more than 55 percent of those with college degrees reported having great confidence in the nation’s scientific leaders. Among those in the lowest income bracket or with very little education, that support drops to 33 percent or less. Meanwhile, about five-sixths of rich or college-educated people—compared to less than half of poor people or those who never finished high school—say they believe that the benefits of science outweigh the potential harms. To put this in crude, horse-race terms, the institution of scientific research consistently polls about 30 points higher among the elites than it does among the uneducated working class.
Ten years ago, that distinction didn’t matter quite so much for politics. …
… with the battle lines redrawn, the same approach to activism now seems as though it could have the opposite effect. In the same way that fighting the War on Journalism delegitimizes the press by making it seem partisan and petty, so might the present fight against the War on Science sap scientific credibility. By confronting it directly, science activists may end up helping to consolidate Trump’s support among his most ardent, science-skeptical constituency. If they’re not careful where and how they step, the science march could turn into an ambush.
I think Engber is making an important point and the strategies and tactics being employed need to be carefully reviewed.
As for the Canadian situation, things are indeed better now but my experience is that while we rarely duplicate the situation in the US, we often find ourselves echoing their cries, albeit years later and more faintly. The current leadership race for the Conservative party has at least one Trump admirer (Kelly Leitch see the section titled: Controversy) fashioning her campaign in light of his perceived successes. Our next so called ‘war on science’ could echo in some ways the current situation in the US and we’d best keep that in mind.
i don’t usually feature jobs for political parties but there appears to be a movement afoot in the US where scientists are possibly going to run for political office so it seems more à propos than usual. Before getting to the job information (for a Canadian political party), here’s more about the nascent scientists as politicians movement from a Jan. 25, 2017 article (Professor Smith Goes to Washington) by Ed Yong for The Atlantic (Note: Links have been removed),
For American science, the next four years look to be challenging. The newly inaugurated President Trump, and many of his Cabinet picks, have repeatedly cast doubt upon the reality of human-made climate change, questioned the repeatedly proven safety of vaccines. Since the inauguration, the administration has already frozen grants and contracts by the Environmental Protection Agency and gagged researchers at the US Department of Agriculture. Many scientists are asking themselves: What can I do?
And the answer from a newly formed group called 314 Action is: Get elected.
The organization, named after the first three digits of pi, is a political action committee that was created to support scientists in running for office. It’s the science version of Emily’s List, which focuses on pro-choice female candidates, or VoteVets, which backs war veterans. “A lot of scientists traditionally feel that science is above politics but we’re seeing that politics is not above getting involved in science,” says founder Shaughnessy Naughton. “We’re losing, and the only way to stop that is to get more people with scientific backgrounds at the table.”
Yong is a good writer and the article offers some insight into why scientists do or don’t involve themselves in the political process along with links for more information.
***ETA Feb. 13, 2017: phys.org has published an article by Deborah Netburn (originally written for the Los Angeles Times) which offers some insight into scientists some of whom are involving themselves in politics for the first in their lives in a Feb. 13, 2017 news item titled ‘Science entering a new frontier: Politics‘.***
Science Borealis, the Canadian science blog aggregrator/community, has chimed in on the science and politics situation in the US with two blog postings on the topic. I wish they’d used titles that more accurately reflected the content but there’s Sarah Boon’s Jan. 24, 2017 posting, The War on Science: Can the US Learn From Canada? on her Watershed Moments blog, where she notes how different the situations are and how much Americans have already done and are doing to work on the issues,
When Donald Trump was first elected president of the United States, our editorial team at Science Borealis talked about whether or not we should write an editorial supporting US scientists in what was likely going to become a fight for science. In the end we decided not to write it, for a number of reasons. For one thing, the likely impact of Trump on science remained a huge unknown. But for another thing, we thought US scientists were already well-prepared for a war on science. …
Unfortunately, Boon goes on to offer a collection of writings on the Canadian situation. I understand it’s well meant but I can’t help recalling people who rushed to comfort me in a difficult situation by recounting their own stories, at length. It wasn’t as helpful as they might have hoped.
One final observation, I have an objection to the term ‘war on science’; there was never a war on science in Canada. There was/is a war on certain kinds of science. In any event, here’s getting to the point of this posting.
Are you a young Canadian with a love of politics? Are you passionate about serving your community, engaging with volunteers, and talking with Canadians about the issues that matter most? The Liberal Party of Canada is looking for hardworking young leaders to join Justin Trudeau’s team this summer, to help us continue to grow Canada’s Liberal movement from coast to coast to coast.
Whether it includes marching in the Vancouver Pride Parade, knocking on doors in Halifax, getting our message out to Canadians using social media, supporting our local Liberal associations in their communities, or learning directly from our campaign experts in Ottawa, an internship with the LPC is guaranteed to be an unforgettable summer! Our interns will have the opportunity to learn the foundations of organizing and campaigning directly from the people who paved our road to victory in 2015, and those who are already hard at work planning for the next election. With less than three years until the next general election, our team is looking for talented young Canadians to bring fresh and innovative ideas to the table.
You’ll gain valuable career experience, and get to know leading members of the Liberal team.
While every individual’s tasks and projects will be different, selected Liberal interns may work in areas including:
Communications and Media Relations
National Field – Campaigns
Graphic and Web Design
Local Field and Outreach
Finance and Accounting
Who: You! All Registered Liberals are encouraged to apply! We are looking for talented young Canadians from coast to coast to coast to work on Justin Trudeau’s team and become the next generation of leaders in the largest, most open, and most inclusive political movement in Canadian history.
Where: Most Interns will be placed in the Liberal Party of Canada National Office in Ottawa, and there also exciting opportunities available in our Regional Offices across the country. Please indicate in your application at least one city where you would be interested in working with our team.
When: Internship positions will run from Monday, May 1 to Friday, August 25. You must be available full-time for the duration of the internship.
This is a full-time, paid internship. [emphasis mine]
All applicants will receive an email of confirmation upon the submission of their application. Interviews will be conducted throughout the month of February. Due to a high volume of applications, only those who are selected for an interview will be contacted.
The Canadian Science Policy Centre (CSPC) launched a lecture series on Monday, Jan. 16, 2017 with Sir Peter Gluckman as the first speaker in a talk titled, Science Advice in a Troubled World. From a Jan. 18, 2017 CSPC announcement (received via email),
The inaugural session of the Canadian Science Policy Lecture Series was hosted by ISSP [University of Ottawa’s Institute for Science Society and Policy (ISSP)] on Monday January 16th  at the University of Ottawa. Sir Peter Gluckman, Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand gave a presentation titled “Science Advise [sic] in a troubled world”. For a summary of the event, video and pictures please visit the event page.
The session started with speeches by Monica Gattiner, Director, Institute for Science, Society and Policy, Jacques Frémont, President of the University of Ottawa as well as Mehrdad Hariri, CEO and President of the Canadian Science Policy Centre (CSPC).
The talk itself is about 50 mins. but there are lengthy introductions, including a rather unexpected (by me) reference to the recent US election from the president of the University of Ottawa, Jacques Frémont (formerly the head of Québec’s Human Rights Commission, where the talk was held. There was also a number of questions after the talk. So, the running time for the video 1 hr. 12 mins.
Sir Peter Gluckman ONZ FRS is the first Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand, having been appointed in 2009. He is also science envoy and advisor to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade. He is chair of the International Network of Government Science Advice (INGSA), which operates under the aegis of the international Council of Science (ICSU). He chairs the APEC Chief Science Advisors and Equivalents group and is the coordinator of the secretariat of Small Advanced Economies Initiative. In 2016 he received the AAAS award in Science Diplomacy. He trained as a pediatric and biomedical scientist and holds a Distinguished University Professorship at the Liggins Institute of the University of Auckland. He has published over 700 scientific papers and several technical and popular science books. He has received the highest scientific (Rutherford medal) and civilian (Order of New Zealand, limited to 20 living persons) honours in NZ and numerous international scientific awards. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of London, a member of the National Academy of Medicine (USA) and a fellow of the Academy of Medical Sciences (UK).
I listened to the entire video and Gluckman presented a thoughtful, nuanced lecture in which he also mentioned Calestous Juma and his 2016 book, Innovation and Its Enemies (btw, I will be writing a commentary about Juma’s extraordinary effort). He also referenced the concepts of post-truth and post-trust, and made an argument for viewing evidence-based science as part of the larger policymaking process rather than the dominant or only factor. From the Science Advice in a Troubled World event page,
The world is facing many challenges from environmental degradation and climate change to global health issues, and many more. Societal relationships are changing; sources of information, reliable and otherwise, and their transmission are affecting the nature of public policy.
Within this context the question arises; how can scientific advice to governments help address these emerging issues in a more unstable and uncertain world?
The relationship between science and politics is complex and the challenges at their interface are growing. What does scientific advice mean within this context?
How can science better inform policy where decision making is increasingly made against a background of post-truth polemic?
I’m not in perfect agreement with Gluckman with regard to post-truth as I have been influenced by an essay of Steve Fuller’s suggesting that science too can be post-truth. (Fuller’s essay was highlighted in my Jan. 6, 2017 posting.)
Gluckman seems to be wielding a fair amount of influence on the Canadian scene. This is his second CSPC visit in the last few months. He was an invited speaker at the Eighth Annual CSPC conference in November 2016 and, while he’s here in Jan. 2017, he’s chairing the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) International Panel on Peer Review. (The CIHR is one of Canada’s three major government funding agencies for the sciences.)
Winston Churchill advised that “experts should be on tap but never on top”. In 2017, is a post-truth world a post-expert world? What does this mean for future debates on difficult policy issues? And what place can researchers usefully occupy in an academic landscape that emphasises policy impact but a political landscape that has become wary of experts? Join us for a lively discussion on academia and the provision of policy advice, examining the role of evidence and experts and exploring how gaps with the public and politicians might be bridged.
This event will be chaired by Achim Steiner, Director of the Oxford Martin School and former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme, with panellists including Oxford Martin Visiting Fellow Professor Sir Peter Gluckman, Chief Science Advisor to the Prime Minister of New Zealand and Chair of the International Network for Government Science Advice; Dr Gemma Harper, Deputy Director for Marine Policy and Evidence and Chief Social Scientist in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), and Professor Stefan Dercon, Chief Economist of the Department for International Development (DFID) and Professor of Economic Policy at the Blavatnik School of Government.
This discussion will be followed by a drinks reception, all welcome.
Here are the logistics should you be lucky enough to be able to attend (from the event page),
25 January 2017 17:00 – 18:15
Lecture Theatre, Oxford Martin School
34 Broad Street (corner of Holywell and Catte Streets)
For the uninitiated, Timbits are also known as donut holes. Tim Hortons, founded by ex-National Hockey League player Tim Horton who has since deceased, has taken hold in the Canada’s language and culture such that one of our scientists trying to to explain nanotechnology thought it would be best understood in terms of Timbits. From a Jan. 14, 2017 article (How nanotechnology could change our lives) by Vanessa Lu for thestar.com,
The future is all in the tiny.
Known as nanoparticles, these are the tiniest particles, so small that we can’t see them or even imagine how small they are.
University of Waterloo’s Frank Gu paints a picture of their scale.
“Take a Timbit and start slicing it into smaller and smaller pieces, so small that every Canadian — about 35 million of us — can hold a piece of the treat,” he said. “And those tiny pieces are still a little bigger than a nanoparticle.”
For years, consumers have seen the benefits of nanotechnology in everything from shrinking cellphones to ultrathin televisions. Apple’s iPhones have become more powerful as they have become smaller — where a chip now holds billions of transistors.
“As you go smaller, it creates less footprint and more power,” said Gu, who holds the Canada research chair in advanced targeted delivery systems. “FaceTime, Skype — they are all powered by nanotechnology, with their retina display.”
When scientists go with their gut or act on a hunch, it can pay off.
For Tim Leshuk, a PhD student in nanotechnology at the University of Waterloo, he knew it was a long shot.
Leshuk had been working with Frank Gu, who leads a nanotechnology research group, on using tiny nanoparticles that have been tweaked with certain properties to purify contaminated water.
Leshuk was working on the process, treating dirty water such as that found in Alberta’s oilsands, with the nanoparticles combined with ultraviolet light. He wondered what might happen if exposed to actual sunlight.
“I didn’t have high hopes,” he said. “For the heck of it, I took some beakers out and put them on the roof. And when I came back, it was far more effective that we had seen with regular UV light.
“It was high-fives all around,” Leshuk said. “It’s not like a Brita filter or a sponge that just soaks up pollutants. It completely breaks them down.”
Things are accelerating quickly, with a spinoff company now formally created called H2nanO, with more ongoing tests scheduled. The research has drawn attention from oilsands companies, and [a] large pre-pilot project to be funded by the Canadian Oil Sands Innovation Alliance is due to get under way soon.
The excitement comes because it’s an entirely green process, converting solar energy for cleanup, and the nanoparticle material is reuseable, over and over.
As for the oilsands, it’s been an interesting few days with the Prime Minister’s (Justin Trudeau) suggestion that dependence would be phased out causing a furor of sorts. From a Jan. 13, 2017 article by James Wood for the Calgary Herald,
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s musings about phasing out the oilsands Friday [Jan. 13, 2017] were met with a barrage of criticism from Alberta’s conservative politicians and a pledge from Premier Rachel Notley that the province’s energy industry was “not going anywhere, any time soon.”
Asked at a town hall event in Peterborough [Ontario] about the federal government’s recent approval of Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, Trudeau reiterated his longstanding remarks that he is attempting to balance economic and environmental concerns.
“We can’t shut down the oilsands tomorrow. We need to phase them out. We need to manage the transition off of our dependence on fossil fuels but it’s going to take time and in the meantime we have to manage that transition,” he added.
Northern Alberta’s oilsands are a prime target for environmentalists because of their significant output of greenhouse gas emissions linked to global climate change.
Trudeau, who will be in Calgary for a cabinet retreat on Jan. 23 and 24 , also said again that it is the responsibility of the national government to get Canadian resources to market.
Meanwhile, Jane Fonda, Hollywood actress, weighed in on the issue of the Alberta oilsands with this (from a Jan. 11, 2017 article by Tristan Hopper for the National Post),
Fort McMurrayites might have assumed the celebrity visits would stop after the city was swept first by recession, and then by wildfire.
Or when the provincial government introduced a carbon tax and started phasing out coal.
And surely, with Donald Trump in the White House, even the oiliest corner of Canada would shift to the activist back burner.
But no; here comes Jane Fonda.
“We don’t need new pipelines,” she told a Wednesday [Jan. 11, 2017] press conference at the University of Alberta where she also dismissed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as a “good-looking Liberal” who couldn’t be trusted.
Saying that her voice was joined with the “Indigenous people of Canada,” Fonda explained her trip to Alberta by saying “when you’re famous you can help amplify the voices of people that can’t necessarily get a lot of press people to come out.”
Fonda is in Alberta at the invitation of Greenpeace, which has brought her here in support of the Treaty Alliance Against Tar Sands Expansion — a group of Canadian First Nations and U.S. tribes opposed to new pipelines to the Athabasca oilsands.
Appearing alongside Fonda, at a table with a sign reading “Respect Indigenous Decisions,” was Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, who, as leader of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, has led anti-pipeline protests and litigation in British Columbia.
“The future is going to be incredibly litigious,” he said in reference to the approved expansion of the Trans-Mountain pipeline.
The event also included Grand Chief Derek Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, which is leading a legal challenge to federal approval of the Line 3 pipeline.
Although much of Athabasca’s oil production now comes from “steam-assisted gravity drainage” projects that requires minimal surface disturbance, on Tuesday Fonda took the requisite helicopter tour of a Fort McMurray-area open pit mine.
As you can see, there are not going to be any easy answers.
This is one of Barack Obama’s last acts as President of the US according to a Jan. 5, 2017 posting by Lynn L. Bergeson on the Nanotechnology Now website,
The American Innovation and Competitiveness Act (S. 3084) would amend the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act (15 U.S.C. § 7501 et seq.) to change the frequency of National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) reports. The strategic plan would be released every five instead of every three years, and the triennial review would be renamed the quadrennial review and be prepared every four years instead of every three. The evaluation of the NNI, which is submitted to Congress, would be due every four instead of every three years. … On December 28, 2016, the bill was presented to President Obama. President Obama is expected to sign the bill.
According to a Dec. 13, 2016 posting by Lynn L. Bergeson and Carla N. Hutton for the National Law Review blog the German government has released a report on nanotechnology, perceptions of risk, and communication strategies,
On November 15, 2016, Germany’sFederal Institute for Risk Assessment (BfR) published a report, in English, entitled Nanoview — Influencing factors on the perception of nanotechnology and target group-specific risk communication strategies. In 2007, BfR conducted a survey concerning the public perception of nanotechnology. Given the newness of nanotechnology and that large sections of the population did not have any definite opinions or knowledge of it, BfR conducted a follow-up survey, Nanoview, in 2012. Nanoview also included the additional question of which communication measures for conveying risk information regarding nanotechnology are best suited to reach the majority of the population. … The report states that, given the findings from the 2007 representative survey, which confirmed gender-specific differences in the perception of nanotechnology, ideal-typical male and ideal-typical female concepts were developed. Focus groups then reviewed and optimized the conceptual considerations. According to the report, the ideal-typical male concept met the expectations of the male target groups (nano-types “supporters” and “cautious observers”).
… According to the report, the conceptual approach of the ideal-typical female concept met the expectations of the female target groups (nano-types “sceptics” and “cautious observers”), as well as catering to the information needs of some men (“cautious observers”). …
The report concludes that, with regard to the central communication measure, creating an information portal on the Internet appears to be the most meaningful strategy. .. The report states: “The ideal-typical male concept is geared towards the provision of information on scientific, technical and application-related aspects of nanotechnology, for example. The ideal-typical female concept focuses on the provision of information on application-related aspects of nanotechnology and support for everyday (purchase) decisions.”
I have quickly gone through the report and it’s interesting to note that the age range surveyed in 2012 was 16 to 60. Presumably Germany is in a similar position to other European countries, Canada, the US, and others in that the main portion of the population is ageing and that population is living longer; consequently, it seems odd to have excluded people over the age of 60.
For the following findings, there were numerous significant differences for the variables gender and age:
Women are on the whole more sceptical towards nanotechnology than men; i.e.
– men tend to be more in favour of nano applications than women
– men take a more positive view than women of the risk-benefit ratio in general and in connection with specific applications
– men have a far better feeling about nanotechnology than women
– when it comes to information about nanotechnology, men have more faith in the government than women; women have more faith than men in environmental organisations as well as health and work safety authorities
– in some areas, men have a far more positive attitude towards nanotechnology than women
Younger people are on the whole more open-minded about nanotechnology than older people; i.e.
-younger people tend to be more in favour of nano applications than older people. The cohort of 16 to 30-year-olds is in some cases far more open-minded than the population overall
– younger people take a (slightly) more positive view than older people of the risk-benefit ratio in general and in connection with specific applications
– in some areas, younger people have a far more positive attitude towards nanotechnology than older people
In contrast, there are few to hardly any significant differences for the variables “education”, “size of household”, “income” and “migration background”. [p. 77]
I also found this to be of interest,
In recent years, there has been little or no change in awareness levels among the general population with regard to nanotechnology. This is shown by a comparison of the representative Germany-wide surveys on the risk perception of nanotechnology among the population conducted in 2007 and 2012 (cf. Chapter 0). In response to the open question regarding nanotechnology, around 40% of respondents in the 2012 survey say they had not previously heard of nanotechnology or nanomaterials (cf. Chapter 4.2.2). At the same time, however, those respondents who did know about the topic were able to make fairly differentiated statements on individual issues and applications. The risk-benefit ratio of nanotechnology is seen slightly more critically than five years previously, and the general attitude towards nanotechnology has become less favourable. The subjective feeling of being informed about the issue is also still less pronounced than is the case with other innovative technologies. From the point of view of consumers, therefore, this means that an information deficit still exists when it comes to nanotechnology. (p. 83)
It seems to be true everywhere. Awareness of nanotechnology does not seem to change much.
This is a 162 pp. report, which recommends risk communication strategies for nanotechnology,
The findings of the representative survey underline the need to inform the public at the earliest possible date about scientific knowledge as well as the potential and possible risks of nanotechnology. For this reason, the challenge was to develop two alternative target group-specific risk communication concepts. The drafting of these concepts was a two-phase process and took account not only of the prior work done in the research project but also of the insights gained from two group discussions with consumers (focus groups). Against the backdrop of the findings from the representative survey, which confirmed the gender-specific differences in the perception of nanotechnology, it was decided in consultation with the client to develop an ideal-typical male and an ideal-typical female concept. … (p. 100)
This returns us to the beginning with the Bergeson/Hutton post. For more details you do need to read the report. By the way, the literature survey is quite broad and interesting bringing together more than 20 surveys to provide an international (largely Eurocentric) perspective.
More than 35,000 people in the federal government are involved in science and technology activities. Also, nearly 50,000 researchers and trainees across the country are supported by the federally funded research councils. From clean air and water to food security and technological advancements, science plays a crucial role in providing the evidence the Government of Canada needs to make decisions that improve the lives of Canadians.
Today, the search begins for the person who will be instrumental in furthering the Government’s commitment to science-based decision making. The Honourable Kirsty Duncan, Minister of Science, is delivering on her key mandate commitment by launching the search for a Chief Science Advisor for Canada. The announcement took place at the historic Library of the National Research Council in Ottawa.
The Chief Science Advisor will be responsible for providing scientific advice to the Prime Minister, the Minister of Science and members of Cabinet. This individual will also advise on how to ensure that government science is open to the public, that federal scientists are able to speak freely about their work, and that science is effectively communicated across government. The office will be supported by a team of scientists and policy experts.
The position is now open to all Canadians. The full job description and information on applying can be found on the Governor in Council website. The application process is expected to close [emphasis mine] on January 27, 2017.
I gather they’re keeping their options open with that “expected to close” phrase leaving them room to weasel out of the Jan. 27, 2016 deadline. In any event, here’s the job description (or as it’s being called “appointment opportunity”, from the Governor in Council Appointments nomination webspace,
Chief Science Advisor,
We know that our country is stronger — and our government more effective — when decision-makers reflect Canada’s diversity. Moving forward, the Government of Canada will use an appointment process that is transparent and merit-based, strives for gender parity, and ensures that Indigenous Canadians and minority groups are properly represented in positions of leadership. We will continue to search for Canadians who reflect the values that we all embrace: inclusion, honesty, fiscal prudence, and generosity of spirit. Together, we will build a government as diverse as Canada.
The overarching goal of the Minister of Science is to support scientific research and the integration of scientific considerations in our investment and policy choices.
The Government of Canada is currently seeking applications from diverse and talented Canadians from across the country who are interested in the following position:
Chief Science Advisor (full-time position)
The Government of Canada is establishing the position of Chief Science Advisor, which will report to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Science. Transparent communication of science and evidence-based policy-making are among the federal government’s top priorities. The new Chief Science Advisor will play a key role in fulfilling that commitment.
The Chief Science Advisor’s main function will be to advise the government on how to ensure that government science is fully available to the public, that scientists are able to speak freely about their work, and that scientific analyses are considered when the government makes decisions. The Chief Science Advisor will focus on how scientific information is disseminated and used by the federal government, and how evidence is incorporated into government-wide decision-making. This will include a particular emphasis on federal scientific research and activities. Looking to broader scientific issues, as an adviser and coordinator of advice, the Chief Science Advisor will aim to provide impartial scientific advice on key issues with science or research components of relevance to Canada.
Candidates must apply online by January 27, 2017, via the Governor in Council website. Your cover letter should be addressed to the Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Senior Personnel), Privy Council Office, and should be sent only through the on-line application.
Salary Range: Under review
Position Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Official Languages and Diversity
The Government of Canada will consider bilingual proficiency and diversity in assessing candidates for this position. You are therefore encouraged to include in your online profile your ability to speak and understand your second official language. Preference may be given to candidates who are members of one or more of the following groups: women, Indigenous Canadians, persons with disabilities, and visible minorities.
To be considered for this position, please provide examples from your career that clearly demonstrate how you meet the following requirements in your application. Please note that the maximum size of each document uploaded as part of your application is 3 MB. A maximum of five (5) documents may be uploaded in respect of any application, including the cover letter and curriculum vitae.
Education and Experience
A doctoral degree in natural sciences, mathematics, engineering sciences, health sciences or social sciences;
Significant experience as a scientific research practitioner and peer reviewer, with a strong record of peer-reviewed publications in a relevant field of specialization;
Demonstrated leadership and management experience within public or private research organizations;
Experience participating in scientific advisory bodies established by government (e.g., expert panels, task forces, committees) would be an asset; and
Experience in one or more of the following areas would be an asset:
involvement in scientific reviews within legislative or regulatory processes;
public scientific communication;
promoting transparency and integrity in scientific research; and
evaluation of scientific or research programs or projects.
If you are selected for an interview, the following criteria will be assessed:
Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
Knowledge of the machinery of the federal government and its decision-making process, as well as knowledge of Canadian federal science and technology policy;
Knowledge of scientific and non-scientific issues relevant to the federal government;
Knowledge of the challenges and opportunities facing evidence-based policy-making within government;
Knowledge of the state of current scientific evidence – including accepted theories, established findings and existing uncertainties – outside the candidate’s field of specialization;
Ability to provide scientific advice in support of policy decisions in an authoritative and independent manner, combining knowledge and experience and effectively addressing the limits of science, the insufficiency of evidence, and appropriately framing uncertainties;
Ability to provide constructive scientific advice on contentious issues where considerations include, but are not limited to, science, and recognizing her or his advisory role in the context of decision-making;
Ability to provide sound advice while demonstrating integrity and independence through non-partisanship;
Ability to think creatively, with a strategic vision for science that extends to the longer term;
Ability to work effectively within a committee or working group framework with various governmental actors; and
Superior communication skills, both written and oral, including the ability to develop and maintain effective relationships and networks with officials and stakeholders in the scientific community.
Proficiency in both official languages would be preferred.
If you move on to the next stage of the selection process, we will contact your references to verify how you have demonstrated the Experience requirements and the following Personal Attributes in your current and recently held positions:
Strategic and innovative thinker
Superior interpersonal skills
Strong analytical skills
High ethical standards and integrity
Tact and diplomacy
Eligibility Factors and Conditions of Employment
In your application, it will be important that you confirm you meet the following requirements:
You reside in or are willing to relocate to the National Capital Region or to a location within reasonable commuting distance; and
You are willing to travel across Canada and internationally.
If you are appointed to this position:
You must comply with the Ethical and Political Activity Guidelines for Public Office Holders throughout your appointment, as a term and condition of employment. The guidelines are available on the Governor in Council Appointments website, under “Forms and Reference Material“.
A link to this notice will be placed in the Canada Gazette to assist the Governor in Council in identifying qualified candidates for this position. It is not, however, intended to be the sole means of recruitment.
A roster of qualified candidates may be established and may be used for similar opportunities.
Interestingly, I don’t think you need to be a Canadian citizen or even to have worked in Canada before applying for this appointment. Of course, it’s highly unlikely you’d understand government processes without some Canadian experience.
I have one other comment, innovative thinkers (the top of the list for personal attributes) tend to be disruptive. In fact, I’ve just found a new term for them, “angelic troublemakers,” in a Sept. 22, 2016 article by *Shane Snow* for Fast Company,
We all know the story of the 1963 March on Washington because it culminated in one of the most iconic moments of the Civil Rights Movement, with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., declaring, “I have a dream.” What many of us don’t know, though, is that the march might not have happened—and the fight for civil rights might have been a lot bloodier—if not for a rather troublesome character named Bayard Rustin.
Rustin was trouble for several reasons. He was a contrarian and outspoken. He was a radical follower of Gandhi, and what Fox News today might call “extremely liberal.” He was also openly gay, which made him a political lightning rod in those days. And yet King fought to keep Rustin around at every turn. That’s because Rustin was a master agitator, exactly what the movement needed.
At Rustin’s urging, the fledgling Civil Rights Movement eschewed direct conflict in favor of being really annoying to the powers that were. He understood that in order to make progress, he and his fellow activists didn’t need to talk and fight the way persecuted people always had. They needed to show—kindly—how it was flawed.
As Rustin famously put it, they needed to be “a group of angelic troublemakers.”
Instead of throwing rocks, Rustin encouraged civil rights protesters to sit down in the streets. Instead of tipping over buses, he encouraged supporters to boycott them. Instead of taking up arms, he encouraged people to link arms and get in the way.
Angelic troublemaking—or going against the grain in a benevolent fashion—is a powerful philosophy for business as well as social movements. It’s not just about being difficult; it’s about forcing people to see situations differently. It’s about making a mess, with good intentions, so things can change.
I suspect what the Canadian government is actually looking for is someone who is open to and champions innovative thinking.
At any rate, it’s good to see that we’re on our way to getting a Chief Science Advisor and it seems we might hear an announcement sometime in Spring 2017.
*Corrected Dec.7, 2016 at 1430 PST: I erroneously identified Walton Isaacson as the author of the Fast Company article. It is an advertising agency which uses Bayard Rustin and ‘angelic troublemaking’ as inspirational principles.
The Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) has expanded its approach from assembling expert panels to report on questions posed by various Canadian government agencies (assessments) to special reports from a three-member panel and, now, to a workshop on the province of Alberta’s science policy ideas. From an Oct. 27, 2016 CCA news release (received via email),
The Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) is pleased to announce that it is undertaking an expert panel workshop on science policy ideas under development in Alberta. The workshop will engage national and international experts to explore various dimensions of sub-national science systems and the role of sub-national science policy.
“We are pleased to undertake this project,” said Eric M. Meslin, PhD, FCAHS, President and CEO of the CCA. “It is an assessment that could discuss strategies that have applications in Alberta, across Canada, and elsewhere.”
A two-day workshop, to be undertaken in November 2016, will bring together a multidisciplinary and multi-sectoral group of leading Canadian and international experts to review, validate, and advance work being done on science policy in Alberta. The workshop will explore the necessary considerations when creating science policy at the sub-national level. Specifically it will:
Debate and validate the main outcomes of a sub-national science enterprise, particularly in relation to knowledge, human, and social capital.
Identify the key elements and characteristics of a successful science enterprise (e.g., funding, trust, capacity, science culture, supporting interconnections and relationships) with a particular focus at a sub-national level.
Explore potential intents of a sub-national science policy, important features of such a policy, and the role of the policy in informing investment decisions.
To lead the design of the workshop, complete the necessary background research, and develop the workshop summary report, the CCA has appointed a five member Workshop Steering Committee, chaired by Joy Johnson, FCAHS, Vice President, Research, Simon Fraser University. The other Steering Committee members are: Paul Dufour, Adjunct Professor, Institute for Science, Society and Policy; University of Ottawa, Principal, Paulicy Works; Janet Halliwell, Principal, J.E. Halliwell Associates, Inc.; Kaye Husbands Fealing, Chair and Professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Tech; and Marc LePage, President and CEO, Genome Canada.
The CCA, under the guidance of its Scientific Advisory Committee, and in collaboration with the Workshop Steering Committee, is now assembling a multidisciplinary, multi-sectoral, group of experts to participate in the two-day workshop. The CCA’s Member Academies – the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Academy of Engineering, and the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences – are a key source of membership for expert panels. Many experts are also Fellows of the Academies.
The workshop results will be published in a final summary report in spring 2017. This workshop assessment is supported by a grant from the Government of Alberta.
By comparison with the CCA’s last assessment mentioned here in a July 1, 2016 posting (The State of Science and Technology and Industrial Research and Development in Canada), this workshop has a better balance. The expert panel is being chaired by a woman (the first time I’ve seen that in a few years) and enough female members to add up to 60% representation. No representation from Québec (perhaps not a surprise given this is Alberta) but there is 40% from the western provinces given there is representation from both BC and Alberta. Business can boast 30% (?) with Paul Dufour doing double duty as both academic and business owner. It’s good to see international representation and one day I hope to see it from somewhere other than the US, the UK, and/or the Europe Union. Maybe Asia?