Tag Archives: Calgary

Canadian Science Policy Conference (in Calgary): call for papers and presentations

Leave a reply

The 4th edition of the Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) will take place in Calgary, Alberta as I hinted (I also suggested that Edmonton was in contention)  in my Feb. 20, 2012 posting. If you have an interest in presenting at the conference, this is the time to submit your session proposals.  From the April 23, 2012 CSPC notice,

Call for Canadian Science Policy Conference 2012 Sessions

Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) 2012 is inviting members of the science policy community to submit proposals for the conference program Nov 5-6, 2012 in Calgary, Alberta. All submissions must be received online by end of day June 8, 2012.

This year’s conference sessions will be under the following 4 themes:

  • Innovating on energy supply and demand for more sustainable resource management: a critical test for the integration of science, technology and policy
  • Re-imagining Canadian Healthcare: How innovation in science and policy can contribute to a more sustainable system
  • Food, Fuel and Farmers: Agriculture at the convergence of multi-disciplinary science policy issues
  • Science-Technology-Society-Nexus

CSPC has become the focal point for Canadian science policy issues, in large part because of the active participation it encourages from the science policy community. Bringing together professionals from business, academia, government and non-profit, CSPC provides an annual forum to discuss the most relevant issues to science, technology and innovation in Canada during its conference sessions. Help shape this year’s dialogue by submitting your session proposal now!

There are more details at the CSPC 2012 website including this excerpt from the conference’s Themes page,

Re-imagining Canadian Healthcare: How innovation in science and policy can contribute to a more sustainable system?

Canadian healthcare spending has been rising steadily over the past few decades with health expenditure to GDP ratios rising from 7% in 1979 to a peak at almost 12% in 2009. Canada, like many nations, has a population that is getting older, living longer, and demanding quality care as well as improvements to the universal healthcare system. Innovation can contribute to improved performance of the system, but the impacts of innovation on cost, efficiency, and health outcomes are not always straightforward.

This CSPC theme will explore the policies and approaches for innovation to positively impact the health system. It will examine innovation and policy issues that related to improving effective and efficient care, accessibility, universality, sustainability, and cost versus benefits.

Food, Fuel and Farmers: Agriculture at the convergence of multi-disciplinary science policy issues

Agriculture requires upwards of 40% of the world’s land area and over 70% of the global fresh water reserves, in turn, generating nearly $2 trillion in global revenues while feeding more than 7 billion people. The implications of agricultural practices and policies thus have a direct link to global economic, environmental and societal outcomes and impacts many other sectors. The global challenge for agriculture, therefore, is to increase production while simultaneously reducing the environmental footprint. Canadian farmers, scientists, policy makers and businesses are responding with innovations in water and land use, genetics, bioproducts and bioprocesses. Productivity isn’t just about yields any more; it’s about energy content and optimization as well as issues such as minimizing losses in the transportation and distribution systems.

This CSPC theme will explore how science is at the heart of these questions. Increasingly, we see that the next generation of farmers and ranchers need to be scientists, innovators and entrepreneurs. However, what does this mean for the universities, policies, regulation and markets that these farmers and ranchers need to thrive going forward? And what does today’s science and innovation applied to agriculture mean for agriculture, energy, environmental and trade policies in the future?

Science-Technology-Society-Nexus

Science and technology are significant pillars in our society and are increasingly transforming the world we live in as well as how we live within that world. Society expects solutions to our most pressing issues, and developments in S&T can bring answers and perspective to these issues. However, advances in S&T can also create new questions. Additionally, popular debate can polarize the public, and controversial S&T issues grow in number. It is, therefore, vital for the science policy community to identify such issues, contribute to discourse, and propose solutions or a way forward.

This theme, within the overarching context of S&T and Society, will examine a variety of issues such as engagement; education and public outreach; publication and data; peer-review; the bread and nature of the innovation system; social innovation; communication; and other major or topical issues in Canadian science policy.

Details about the proposal format, etc. are on the conference’s Submissions page,

PROPOSAL FORMAT

  1. Please submit a brief proposal that outlines the title and subject of your session, as well as proposed speakers (including bios), format and goals of the proposed conference session. Please note the word limit on the website.
  2. Proposals must be submitted to the CSPC program committee online at www.cspc2012.ca/presentationsubmissions.php for evaluation prior end of day June 8, 2012. CONFERENCE THEMES:

This year’s conference themes are under the 4 categories of energy, health, agriculture and major issues in science and society. The theme descriptions are under the following titles:

  • Innovating on energy supply and demand for more sustainable resource management: a critical test for the integration of science, technology and policy
  • Re-imagining Canadian Healthcare: How innovation in science and policy can contribute to a more sustainable system
  • Food, Fuel and Farmers: Agriculture at the convergence of multi-disciplinary science policy issues
  • Science-Technology-Society-Nexus

They are intended to spark some insightful exploration and debate on the issues, but more importantly they seek to highlight some of the innovative ways in which science, technology and policy can contribute to an integrated and systemic approach to solving these issues in Canada and the world.

…

EVALUATION CRITERIA:
The CSPC 2012 Program Committee will review each of the proposals and evaluate them based on the following criteria:

  • Quality of the proposed session: CSPC tries to cover topics that are highly relevant or timely for the science policy community in Canada to discuss. Sessions that can draw together strong speakers or facilitators on subjects that are either garnering much attention publically or politically, or that are enduring societal problems, will rank more competitively than those that don’t. Sessions with confirmed speakers will rank more competitively than those without.
  • Alignment with the conference objectives: The conference objectives seek to support innovation in Canada and build both community and ideas for strengthening the science policy environment. The session proposal will be evaluated on its ability to support these primary objectives.
  • Alignment with the conference themes: CSPC strives for a balance that dives deep enough into the issues to identify specific elements of what works and what doesn’t from planning through to implementation, yet is still able to make the discussion accessible to a broader audience. Sessions should include experts that can provide detailed examples under the CSPC 2012 themes to support their arguments, and translate those details into more transferable lessons learned and best practices.
  • Representation of a diverse range of speakers: CSPC doesn’t have a specific formula for evaluating session speakers, but it does embrace diversity as one of its core values. The more diverse the range of perspectives that your speakers can offer in terms of roles (government, business, academia, non-profit etc.) or discipline, gender, ethnicity, geography, experience or other aspects, the stronger your proposal will be relative to the others.

SESSION FORMAT & AUDIENCE:

Sessions are 90 minutes. Typically they have followed a panel presentation format, but some adopt more of a workshop or facilitated discussion style. CSPC has received enthusiastic feedback regarding sessions that allow for more interaction between the speakers and the delegates, and also those that bring a lively debate. Case studies and stories are easier for people to engage with than lists, facts and rhetoric. Consider challenging your speakers to be more creative when sharing their ideas.

The majority of the delegates will be fairly educated on different fields of science policy, but may not understand your field. You may want to include materials to prime the audience in order to allow your session to explore things to a greater depth. Many of the delegates are also practitioners in the science policy community, hungry for things to take back to their work beyond education and awareness. Often we’re asking people to “step outside their comfort zones” in order to foster more creativity in the way we think about and approach science, technology, policy and innovation. The more you can challenge your audience to participate in some way, such as writing down their biases or the first things that come to their mind, sharing with the person next to them what they think the key issues are, or hosting full break-out discussions the better.

Based on past attendance the majority is from academic, government, or non-profit institutions. CSPC is trying to target participants from the private sector for whom science policy is highly relevant, yet underrepresented. If you can propose a session which will engage this audience or if you have suggestions on how to better engage this sector please let us know!

Conference registration is free for speakers and facilitators.

As for suggestions about how to engage with folks from the private sector, that’s an interesting problem. I find it encouraging that they want to extend the discussion to a larger audience but I’m  not sure which part of the private sector they want to engage.  Investors? Venture capitalists? Bankers? Lawyers? Startup business owners? Big business? Accountants? Youthful entrepreneurs? New media? Gamers? etc.This gives me a lot to think about.

One small historical note, the first CSPC conference led to the creation of the Canadian Science Policy Centre which exists online here.

Good luck with your submissions!

Alberta’s Domino (point-of-care diagnostic) and Navacim (nano drug delivery) competing for $175,000 prize

Leave a reply

It’s interesting that two nanomedicine products are in contention for TEC Edmonton‘s NanoVenture Prize. It’s a new prize category for the business accelerator in this, their 10th anniversary year. From TEC Edmonton’s March 27, 2012 news release,

The NanoVenturePrize finalists are Aquila Diagnostics of Edmonton and Calgary’s Parvus Therapeutics.

Aquila Diagnostics uses the Domino nanotechnology platform developed at the University of Alberta to provide on-site, easy-to-use genetic testing that can quickly test for infectious diseases and pathogens in livestock. The mobile diagnostic platform is portable, low-cost, fast and easy to use.

Parvus Therapeutics’ breakthrough nanomedicines may hold the cure for difficult-to-treat autoimmune diseases like type 1 diabetes, multiple sclerosis and inflammatory bowel disease. Parvus’ new Navacim medicines are nanoparticles coated with immune system proteins that can target specific autoimmune conditions.

The University of Alberta has issued its own April 24, 2012 news release by Bryan Alary about the Domino,

Dubbed the Domino, the technology—developed by a U of A research team—has the potential to revolutionize point-of-care medicine. The innovation has also earned Aquila Diagnostic Systems, the Edmonton-based nano startup that licensed the technology, a shot at $175,000 as a finalist for the TEC NanoVenturePrize award.

“We’re basically replacing millions of dollars of equipment that would be in a conventional, consolidated lab with something that costs pennies to produce and is field portable so you can take it where needed. That’s where this technology shines,” said Jason Acker, an associate professor of laboratory medicine and pathology at the U of A and chief technology officer with Aquila.

The Domino employs polymerase chain reaction technology used to amplify and detect targeted sequences of DNA, but in a miniaturized form that fits on a plastic chip the size of two postage stamps. The chip contains 20 gel posts—each the size of a pinhead—capable of identifying sequences of DNA with a single drop of blood.

Each post performs its own genetic test, meaning you can not only find out whether you have malaria, but also determine the type of malaria and whether your DNA makes you resistant to certain antimalarial drugs. It takes less than an hour to process one chip, making it possible to screen large populations in a short time.

“That’s the real value proposition—being able to do multiple tests at the same time,” Acker said, adding that the Domino has been used in several recently published studies, showing similar accuracy to centralized labs.

Linda Pilarski, an oncology professor at the University of Alberta (mentioned in my Jan. 4, 2012 posting about her diagnostics-on-a-chip work), and her team developed Domino according to the April 25, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

In 2008, her team received $5 million over five years from Alberta Innovates Health Solutions to perfect and commercialize the technology. As an oncologist, Pilarski is interested in its pharmacogenomic testing capabilities, such as determining whether breast cancer patients are genetically disposed to resist certain drugs.

“With most cancers you want to treat the patient with the most effective therapeutic as possible,” she said. “That’s what this does: it really enables personalized medicine. It will be able to test every patient at the right time, right in their doctor’s office. That’s currently not feasible because it’s too expensive.”

This product is intended for the market but not the one you might expect (from the April 25, 2012 news item on Nanowerk),

Along with its versatility, two key selling points are affordability and portability, with each portable box expected to cost about $5,000 and each chip a few dollars, says Aquila president David Alton. It’s also designed to be easy to use and rugged—important features for the livestock industry, the company’s first target market. [emphasis mine] The Domino will be put through trials within a year at one of the country’s largest feedlots in southern Alberta.

Alton credits Aquila’s relationship with the U of A, not just for the research but for the business relationship with TEC Edmonton that has helped the company license and patent Domino. TEC Edmonton is a joint venture between the U of A and Edmonton Economic Development Corporation with resources and expertise to help startups in the early stages of operations.

“We see a huge potential market for the technology and we’re looking at applying the technology developed here at the U of A to markets first in Alberta and then globally, to address important health issues here and throughout the world.”

Given that the originator is an oncologist I really wasn’t expecting the first market to be livestock industry.

I have had a little less luck getting information about Parvus Therapeutics’ Navacim technology as they’ve not issued a news release about their competition for this prize but I did find some information on their website, from an April 8, 2010 news release about the Navacim technology being featured in a Popular Science article,

Parvus Therapeutics reports that an article entitled “Nanotech Vaccine Successfully Cures Type-1 Diabetes in Mice” has been published at the website of Popular Science. The article, authored by Alessandra Calderin, describes the Parvus Navacim technology and includes remarks from Parvus’ Founder and Chief Scientific Officer, Dr. Pere Santamaria.

The article notes that,

“The technology behind the nanovaccine, following further research, may prove widely applicable to treat other autoimmune diseases, like arthritis and multiple sclerosis, as well.”

You may want to take a look at the news brief by Calderin. Here’s more about the technology, from the Introducing Navacims webpage on the Parvus Therapeutics website,

Our nanotechnology-based therapeutic platform and Navacims, the therapeutic candidates, are the result of two related discoveries: A new class of immune cell, and a new way to treat autoimmunity that these cells provide. Here we provide a very brief summary of how these discoveries came about and what they have led to since.

This summary is also intended as a roadmap to the contents of this technology section of our website, which we will role out over a period of weeks and adapt based on reader feedback and requests. The casual reader may find the background information helpful, while our professional colleagues will probably want to get straight down to the technical details and published papers. We have tried to design the content to cater to all tastes and it can be read in any order, although like all good stories, we highly recommend starting at the beginning.

As with the remainder of our site, we have injected a little colour and a little humour to keep your spirits up if the science appears a little daunting. In all, we have attempted to strike a balance between scientific detail and general accessibility and if you think we have that balance wrong, or you feel something is missing, please let us know — via the form on the Contacts page — and we will try to put it right. We love to hear from you.

The Story So Far

[1] In a series of experiments, only tangentially related to our current activities, we designed p-MHC-coated nanoparticles (NPs) as a way to load iron into effector T-cells and have them ferry the iron to the pancreas so we could visualize pancreatic islet cell inflammation in-vivo, in real-time — this amounts to the use of a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) contrast agent.

[2] It occurred to us that we might be able to use these p-MHC-NPs to delete the high avidity cytotoxic effector T cells driving disease in the NOD mouse model of type 1 diabetes (T1D).

[3] Too our surprise, therapy did not delete, but rather, very significantly expanded autoregulatory T cell pools.

[4] After careful analysis we were able to conclude that:

pMHC-NPs, now called Navacims, selectively expand a population of low avidity autoregulatory memory T cells that the disease itself generates — this population of cells was previously unknown to science. These cells target and kill antigen presenting cells (APCs), and consequently, interput the process whereby all the cytotoxic effector T cell lineages active in a disease are activated and expanded.

Navacims also directly deplete the high avidity cytotoxic effector T cells cognate to the pMHC carried by the nanoparticle. This removes one lineage of cells that cause damage in disease, but given the many antigens, and consequently the many T cell lineages, the overall therapeutic effect of removing one type is inconsequential compared to the indirect effect of the Navacim on APCs that removes all lineages.

The removal of APCs and the concomitant loss of multiple cytotoxic effector T-cell lineages that drive disease amounted to a cure for T1D in the NOD mouse model.

[5] We believe that Navacims have the potential to become the long sought after ideal treatment for autoimmunity; a therapeutic that restores immunological tolerance — the principal problem in autoimmunity — while depleting autoreactive cells that mediate the damaging effects of disease.

[6] Navacims appear to be safe and very well tolerated in animal experiments that have lasted many months, although we caution that we have yet to complete formal toxicological studies.

[7] Navacims are highly modular and a family of Navacims can be almost identical, differing only in the very short antigenic peptide that gives each one its specificity for a particular disease.

[8] Because they are so similar, we beleive that industry-standard manufacturing processes will need few if any modifications in order to produce a particular Navacim.

[9] We have protected our discoveries with patent applications in the United States, Europe, Canada, and beyond.

[10] Our work has been published in top-ranked peer-reviewed journals and showcased in the best of the popular science publications.

Good luck to both companies in their future endeavours.

ETA April 30,2012: According to the April 27, 2012 article in the Edmonton Journal, Parvus Therapeutics won the $175, 000 prize in TEC Edmonton’s new prize category.,

This year’s awards, the 10th consecutive, added a new category for nanotechnology firms. TEC partnered with Alberta Innovates — Technology Futures for the new award. Calgary’s Parvus Therapeutics, which makes medicine aimed at autoimmune diseases such as Type 1 diabetes and multiple sclerosis, beat out Edmonton’s Aquila Diagnostic Systems for first place. The category’s prizes totalled $175,000 in cash and services.

AAAS 2012, the Sunday, Feb. 19, 2012 experience: art/sci, HUBzero, and a news scoop from the exhibition floor

2 Replies

“New Concepts in Integrating Arts and Science Research for a Global Knowledge Society” at the AAAS 2012 annual meeting provided some thought provoking moments courtesy of Gunalan Nadarajan, Vice Provost at the Maryland Institute College of Art. It’s always good to be reminded that art schools are only about 300 years old and the notion of studying science as a separate discipline is only about 200 years old. We tend talk about the arts and the sciences as if they’ve always been separate pursuits when, as Nadarajan pointed out, they were part of a larger pursuit, which included philosophy and religion as well. That pursuit was knowledge.

Nadarajan mentioned a new network (a pilot project) in the US called the Network for Science Engineering Art and Design where they hope to bring scientists and artists together for collaborative work. These relationships are not always successful and Nadarajan noted that the problems tend to boil down to relationship issues (sometimes people don’t get along very well even with the best of intentions). He did say that he wanted to encourage people to get to know each other first in nonstressful environments such as sharing a meal or coffee. It sounded a little bit like dating but rather than a romantic encounter (or that might be a possibility too), the emphasis is on your work compatibility.

According to a blog posting by one of the organizers of the Network for Science Engineering Art and Design, Roger Malina, it is searching for a new name (search engine issues). You can get more information about the new network in Malina’s Feb. 19, 2012 posting.

“HUBzero: Building Collaboratories for Research on a Global Scale” was a session I anticipated with much interest and I’m glad to say it was very good with all the speakers being articulate and excited about their topics. I did not realize that there are a number of hubs in the US; I’m familiar only with the nanoHUB based at Purdue University in Indiana. (My most recent posting about this was the Dec. 5, 2011 posting about their NanoHUB-U initiative.)

nanoHUB and the others all run on an open source software designed for scientific collaboration. What I found most fascinating was the differences between the various hubs. Michael McLennan spoke about both the HUBzero software (which can be downloaded for free from the HUBzero website) and the nanoHUB, which services the nanotechnology community and has approximately 200,000 registered users at this time (they double their numbers every 12 – 18 months according to McLennan).

There are videos, papers, courses, social networking opportunities and more can be made available through the HUBzero software but uniquely configured to each group’s needs. Ellen M. Rathje (University of Texas, Austin) spoke at length about some of the challenges the earthquake engineers (NEES.org) addressed when developing their hub with regard to sharing data and some of the analytical difficulties associated with earthquake data.

Each group that uses the software to create a hub has its own culture and customs and the software has to be tweaked such that the advantages to adopting new work strategies outweigh the disadvantages of making changes. William K. Barnett whose portfolio includes encouraging the use of collaborative technologies for the Indiana Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CSTI) had to adopt an approach for doctors who typically have very little time to adopt new technologies and who have requirements regarding confidentiality that are far different than that of nanoscientists or earthquake engineers.

I got my ‘scooplet’ when I visited the exhibition floor. The 2012 Canadian Science Policy Conference (2012 CSPC) will be held in Alberta as you can see in this Feb. 19, 2012 posting on the Government of Canada science site.

Apparently, there are two cities under consideration and, for anyone  who’s been hoping for a meeting in Wetaskawin, I must grind your dreams into dust. As most Canadians would expect, the choice is between Edmonton and Calgary. I understand the scales are tipped towards Calgary (that’s the scooplet) but these things can change in a heartbeat (no, don’t get your hopes up about Wetaskawin). I understand we should be learning the decision soon (I wonder if Banff might emerge as a dark horse contender).