Tag Archives: Industry Canada

Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation welcomes Alex Benay as president and chief executive officer (CEO)

The search took over one year as the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation (CSTMC) cast about for a new president and CEO in the wake of previous incumbent Denise Amyot’s departure. From the June 17, 2014 CSTMC announcement,

The Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation (CSTMC) welcomes the appointment by the Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages, the Honourable Shelly Glover, of Alex Benay as its new President and CEO. Mr Benay will assume the role beginning July 2, 2014 for a 5-year term.

“This is excellent news,” said Dr Gary Polonsky, Chair of the CSTMC Board of Trustees. “Alex Benay is an exceptional leader with the capacity to heighten the CSTMC profile as the only national museum institution entirely dedicated to tracking Canada’s rich history and heritage in science, technology and innovation.”

“Alex’s appointment demonstrates the government’s support toward our museums”, added Dr Polonsky. “I wish to recognize Minister Glover’s leadership in this nomination process and express our gratitude for the appointment of a leader with vast experience in managing people, processes and resources. Alex’s significant networks in the private and public sectors in Canada and internationally, and leadership experience with Canada’s digital industry, will be great assets in developing the Corporation.”

Mr Benay was previously Vice-President, Government Affairs and Business Development at Open Text, Canada’s largest software company since 2011.

As President and CEO, Mr Benay will be responsible for the CSTMC’s day-to-day operations and a staff of about 225 employees and an annual budget of $33 million. The CSTMC includes the Canada Agriculture and Food Museum, the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, and the Canada Science and Technology Museum. Collectively, they are responsible for preserving and protecting Canada’s scientific and technological heritage, while also promoting, celebrating, and sharing knowledge of that heritage and how it impacts Canadians’ daily lives.

I took a look at Mr. Benay’s LinkedIn profile and found this,

President and Chief Executive Officer
Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation

Government Agency; 201-500 employees; Museums and Institutions industry

June 2014 – Present (1 month) Ottawa, Canada Area

VP, Government Relations
OpenText

Public Company; 5001-10,000 employees; OTEX; Computer Software industry

August 2012 – June 2014 (1 year 11 months) Ottawa

VP, Enterprise Software and Cloud Services
Maplesoft Group

Privately Held; 51-200 employees; Information Technology and Services industry

March 2012 – August 2012 (6 months) Canada

VP, Government Relations
OpenText

Public Company; 5001-10,000 employees; OTEX; Computer Software industry

July 2011 – March 2012 (9 months) Ottawa, Ontario

Manage government relations including :
– trade relations
– trade promotion
– global strategic investment programs (G20, Commonwealth, etc.)
– senior level delegations and engagements
– manage government grant and industry investment programs
– Etc.

Provide company wide government thought leadership and strategic planning

Director, Industry Marketing
Open Text

Public Company; 5001-10,000 employees; OTEX; Computer Software industry

August 2010 – March 2012 (1 year 8 months) Ottawa, Ontario

Responsible for marketing and communication strategies for OpenText’s major industry sectors, enabling field sales and providing thought leadership in key priority sectors.

Director, Eastern Canadian Sales
Open Text

Public Company; 5001-10,000 employees; OTEX; Computer Software industry

January 2010 – August 2010 (8 months) Ottawa, Ontario

Responsible for all product, solutions and services sales for Ottawa, Québec and the Maritimes.

Senior Director, Customer Enablement
Open Text

Public Company; 5001-10,000 employees; OTEX; Computer Software industry

2009 – 2010 (1 year) Ottawa, Ontario

Responsible, throughout the Canadian public sector (including healtcare), for all professional services delivery, establishing a national training program, managing partner relations, pubic speaking engagements, technical support and overall existing customer relations.
Strong focus on strategic communications and planning throughout the Canadian Public Sector.

Director, Information Management
Canadian International Development Agency

Government Agency; 1001-5000 employees; Government Administration industry

2006 – 2009 (3 years) Gatineau, Québec

Responsible for all information and communications aspects within the organisation : enterprise technologies, communication strategies, strategic planning, etc. Including all policy, operational and management aspects of managing organisational information and knowledge

Director, Policy
Canadian International Development Agency

Government Agency; 1001-5000 employees; International Affairs industry

2004 – 2006 (2 years)

Define ICT policy framework for CIDA
coordinate with central agencies and other large multilateral organisations

Senior Program Manager
Canadian International Development Agency

Government Agency; 1001-5000 employees; International Affairs industry

2003 – 2004 (1 year)

Managed all information and communications elements for the Multilateral Programs Branch. Responsible for relations with United Nations, World Bank, etc.; ensuring all systems (technical and human) were properly enabling multilateral development; developed large and complex global engagement and communications strategies pertaining to Canadian multilateralism

Manager, Information, Communications and Knowledge Management
Natural Resources Canada

Government Agency; 1001-5000 employees; Government Administration industry

2001 – 2003 (2 years)

Responsible for the Energy Sector information, communication and knowledge management strategies, thought leadership, events, strategic planning and operational management.

Information Services Officer
Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade

2000 – 2001 (1 year)

Provide global briefing and communications support to various senior Foreign Affairs and International Trade Ministers, Deputy Ministers and Assistant Deputy Ministers

Medical Assistant
Canadian Armed Forces

Government Agency; 10,001+ employees; Military industry

1999 – 2001 (2 years)

Medical Assistant duties included : emergency response, first aid, suturing, orderly duties, basic military training, etc.

Archival Assistant
Library and Archives Canada

Government Agency; 1001-5000 employees; Government Administration industry

1998 – 2000 (2 years)

He certainly brings an interesting and peripatetic work history to the position. Given his previous work record and that he looks to be relatively young (I estimate he’s a few years shy of 40), my most optimistic prediction is that he will last five to six years in this job, assuming he makes it past his first six months.

Alex Benay, president and CEO of the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation

Alex Benay, president and CEO of the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation

Getting back to his work record, I’m not sure how Mr. Benay manged to be both an archival assistant for Library and Archives Canada and a medical assistant for the Canadian Armed Forces from 1999 – 2000. (Possibly he was working in the Reserves, which, as I understand it, requires weekends and the occasional longterm stint easily contained within one’s work vacation.) There is one other niggling thing, wouldn’t 1998 – 2000 be three years not two?

Interestingly, the company with which Benay has been most closely associated is OpenText whose Chairman, Tom Jenkins, led a  panel to review government funding programmes for research and development (R&D, a term often synonymous with science and technology). The resultant report is known familiarly as the Jenkins Report (Innovation Canada: A Call to Action; Review of Federal Support to R&D;–Expert Panel Report). I’m guessing Mr. Benay brings with him some important connections both corporately and governmentally, which could potentially extend to the University of British Columbia where Arvind Gupta (a member of Jenkins’ expert panel) is due to take up the reins as president when Stephen Toope officially vacates the position June 30, 2014.

I’m not sure how much insight one can derive from this March 6, 2014 article (for Canadian Government Executive) written by Mr. Benay while he was enjoying his second stint as VP Government Relations for Open Text,

With the rise of “smart power,” distinct from “hard” and “soft” power of traditional theories of international relations, the use of online collaboration has become an integral part of government communication.

Public sector employees who adopt partner-based collaboration models will find that they are able to effectively achieve their goals and generate results. Ideas shared through open-platform communication technologies, peer-to-peer networks, and enterprise-grade secure collaboration platforms can help foster greater dialogue and understanding between governments and citizens, ultimately leading to more effective attainment of foreign policy goals.

Increasingly, public-private partnerships are driving this new era of e-diplomacy.

As an example, governments worldwide are achieving tremendous success through their use of Public Service Without Borders (PSWB), the secure, cloud-enabled collaboration and social media environment developed in partnership with the Institute of Public Administration of Canada (IPAC).

Using secure social software solutions, PSWB helps to connect all levels of public service employees to one another to network, engage, share ideas and impart valuable lessons learned in such areas as governance, healthcare, technology and the environment. Whether via desktops or through mobile devices, participants can connect, network, plan and deliver exciting new partnerships and initiatives anytime, from anywhere in the world. This online collaboration platform ultimately fosters better, faster and more efficient services to all constituencies.

Another case in point is the G-20 Summit in Toronto. For the first time in history, policymakers from around the world were able to collaborate over secure social networking software in advance of and during the Toronto G-20 Summit. A confidential and secure social networking application was created to enhance the sharing of government leaders’ stances on important world financial issues. [emphasis mine]

Providing the secure, hosted social networking platform to G-8 and G-20 participants was in itself a collaboration between Open Text, the Canadian Digital Media Network (CDMN) – the organization that attracted high-tech companies to the event – and the then-called Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). [emphasis mine] In addition to secure Web access from anywhere in the world in real time, delegates were also able to access the application from their BlackBerrys, iPhones and iPads. The application supported multiple languages to enhance the ability of delegates to network productively.

The leap from ‘soft power’ in paragraphs one and two  to ‘public-private partnerships’ in paragraph three is a bit startling and suggests Benay’s tendency is towards ‘big picture’ thinking buttressed by a weakness for jumping from one idea to the next without much preparation. This is not a deal breaker as all leaders have weaknesses and a good one knows that sort of thing about him or herself so compensates for it.

Benay’s association with OpenText and, presumably, Jenkins suggests * strongly, when added to his article on public-private partnerships, that the CSTMC museums will be corporatized to a new degree. After all, it was Jenkins who delivered a report with recommendations to tie research funding more directly to business and economic needs. (This report was submitted to then Minister of State for Science and Technology, Gary Goodyear on Oct. 17, 2011 according to this Review of Federal Support to Research and Development  website. For those unfamiliar with the Canadian science and technology scene, this is considered a junior ministry and is part of the Industry Canada portfolio.) Since 2011, a number of these recommendations have been adopted, often accompanied by howls of despair (this May 22, 2013 posting delves into some of the controversies,which attracted attention by US observers).

I am somewhat intrigued by Benay’s experience with content management and digital media. I’m hopeful he will be using that experience to make some changes at the CSTMC such that it offers richer online and outreach experiences in the museums (Canada Agriculture and Food Museum, the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, and the Canada Science and Technology Museum) for those of us who are not resident in Ottawa. Amyot, during her* tenure, made some attempts (my Oct. 28, 2010 posting makes note of one such attempt) but they failed to take root for reasons not known* to me.

Returning to Benay’s old boss for a moment, Tom Jenkins has some connections of his own with regard to digital media and the military (from the OpenText Board of Directors page) ,

Mr. Jenkins was Chair of the Government of Canada’s military procurement review Panel which reported “Canada First: Leveraging Defence Procurement through Key Industrial Sectors (KICs) in February 2013 and reviewed the $490 Billion of federal public spending on defence to determine means by which the Canadian economy could benefit from military procurement.   Mr. Jenkins was Chair of the Government of Canada’s Research and Development Policy Review Panel which reported “Innovation Canada: A Call to Action” in October 2011 and reviewed the $7 Billion of federal public spending on research to assist the Canadian economy in becoming more innovative.   He was also chair of the November 2011 report to the Government of Canada on Innovation and Government Procurement.  He is also the Chair of the federal centre of excellence Canadian Digital Media Network (CDMN) which co-ordinates commercialization activity in the digital economy throughout Canada.  He is a member of the Canadian Government’s Advisory Panel on Open Government.  He is also an appointed member of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), past appointed member of the Government of Canada’s Competition Policy Review Panel (the Wilson Panel) which reported “Compete to Win” in June 2008, and past appointed member of the Province of Ontario’s Ontario Commercialization Network Review Committee (OCN) which reported in February 2009.  … Mr. Jenkins is also one of the founders of Communitech – the Waterloo Region Technology Association.  Mr. Jenkins served as a commissioned officer in the Canadian Forces Reserve and he currently serves as Honorary Colonel of the Royal Highland Fusiliers of Canada (RHFC), a reserve infantry regiment in the Waterloo Region. [emphases mine]

Meanwhile, Mr. Benay’s appointment takes place within a larger context where the Council of Canadian Academies will be presenting two assessments with direct bearing on the CSTMC. The first, which is scheduled for release in 2014, is The State of Canada’s Science Culture (an assessment requested by the CSTMC which much later was joined by Industry Canada and Natural Resources Canada). The assessment is featured in my Feb. 22, 2013 posting titled: Expert panel to assess the state of Canada’s science culture—not exactly whelming. I will predict now that a main focus of this report will be on children, STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics, and the economy (i.e., how do we get more children to study STEM topics?). Following on that thought, what better to way to encourage children than to give them good experiences with informal science education (code for science museums and centres).

The second assessment is called Memory Institutions and the Digital Revolution and was requested by Library and Archives Canada (museums too perform archival functions). in the context of a Jan. 30,2014 posting about digitizing materials in Fisheries and Oceans Canada libraries I excerpted this from an earlier posting,

Library and Archives Canada has asked the Council of Canadian Academies to assess how memory institutions, which include archives, libraries, museums, and other cultural institutions, can embrace the opportunities and challenges of the changing ways in which Canadians are communicating and working in the digital age.

Background

Over the past three decades, Canadians have seen a dramatic transformation in both personal and professional forms of communication due to new technologies. Where the early personal computer and word-processing systems were largely used and understood as extensions of the typewriter, advances in technology since the 1980s have enabled people to adopt different approaches to communicating and documenting their lives, culture, and work. Increased computing power, inexpensive electronic storage, and the widespread adoption of broadband computer networks have thrust methods of communication far ahead of our ability to grasp the implications of these advances.

These trends present both significant challenges and opportunities for traditional memory institutions as they work towards ensuring that valuable information is safeguarded and maintained for the long term and for the benefit of future generations. It requires that they keep track of new types of records that may be of future cultural significance, and of any changes in how decisions are being documented. As part of this assessment, the Council’s expert panel will examine the evidence as it relates to emerging trends, international best practices in archiving, and strengths and weaknesses in how Canada’s memory institutions are responding to these opportunities and challenges. Once complete, this assessment will provide an in-depth and balanced report that will support Library and Archives Canada and other memory institutions as they consider how best to manage and preserve the mass quantity of communications records generated as a result of new and emerging technologies.

The Council’s assessment is running concurrently with the Royal Society of Canada’s [RSC] expert panel assessment on Libraries and Archives in 21st century Canada. Though similar in subject matter, these assessments have a different focus and follow a different process. The Council’s assessment is concerned foremost with opportunities and challenges for memory institutions as they adapt to a rapidly changing digital environment. In navigating these issues, the Council will draw on a highly qualified and multidisciplinary expert panel to undertake a rigorous assessment of the evidence and of significant international trends in policy and technology now underway. The final report will provide Canadians, policy-makers, and decision-makers with the evidence and information needed to consider policy directions. In contrast, the RSC panel focuses on the status and future of libraries and archives, and will draw upon a public engagement process.

While this could be considered a curse, these are interesting times.

* ‘a’ removed from ‘a strongly’ and ‘strongly’ moved to closer proximity with ‘suggests’, ‘her’ added to ‘her tenure’ and ‘know’ corrected to ‘known’ on June 19, 2014 at 1200 hours PDT.

Integran’s 2013 SERDP Award and its hockey sticks

Integran, a company based in Mississauga (sometimes identified as Toronto), Ontario, has received an award for its nanostructured alloy, a replacement for poisonous copper-beryllium, according to a Feb. 13, 2014 news item on Azonano,

Toronto-based Integran Technologies Inc. (Integran) today announced that it has received the 2013 SERDP (Strategic Environmental Research and Defense Program) Project-of-the-Year Award for Weapons Systems and Platforms for the development of a nanostructured alloy for copper-beryllium replacement.

For decades, essential parts in fixed and rotary wing military platforms have been made with copper-beryllium alloys. Beryllium is particularly useful for this purpose because it is both lightweight and strong, a rare combination not found in most other metals. The problem is beryllium is a toxic material that can be harmful to workers who handle it during assembly and repair. Working with beryllium, which requires donning protective gear and taking extensive precautions, is costly and time-consuming.

The Feb. 12, 2014 Integran news release found on MarketWire but oddly not on the company’s website at this time (Feb. 13, 2014) and which originated the news item, describes the process in general terms,

With support from US DoD’s SERDP program and Industry Canada’s Strategic Aerospace and Defense Initiative (SADI) program, Integran developed and validated an electroforming process that produces a nanostructured alloy that matches the desirable properties of copper-beryllium, particularly for use as high load bushings. This pulsed electroplating process goes beyond merely coating a metal object. Rather, near-net-shape components are created that require little to no machining to achieve final dimensions, resulting in very little material waste. The work also showed this innovative process can be used successfully for large metal sheets and high conductivity wires, both of which are used in multiple military applications.

Integran’s Aerospace and Defense R&D Unit Manager Brandon Bouwhuis states, “The validation testing performed in this project demonstrates that these nanostructured alloys can meet or exceed the performance of copper beryllium in many applications, and could result in substantial cost savings for the US DoD and Canadian Military through the decreased use of toxic substances.”

There is no mention in this news release as to whether Integran’s replacement alloy might itself be poisonous or toxic in some form.

I checked the Integran website and found that it lists one product, Nanovate. I was not able to find any information about environmental testing but there is this on the company’s  Why Nanovate™? webpage (Note: Links have been removed),

Integran is a world leader in development and manufacturing of revolutionary electrodeposited (plated) nanocrystalline “Nanovate™” metals. Our nanotechnology enabled metals take advantage of the fine crystalline grain structure to achieve superior performance at reduced weight vs conventional material solutions. Our technology platform consists primarily of Nickel, Iron, Cobalt and Copper alloys that we use to create high performance parts that are:

  • Lighter, stronger, harder and cheaper than Aluminum
  • Corrosion and wear resistant
  • Shielded against low frequency magnetic interference
  • Efficiently absorb energy and noise

In addition to manufacturing products, we also provide services such as:

  • Plating on plastics, including polymers like polyamides (Nylon), PEEK and ABS

I have previously posted about Integran and its alloy many times including this April 16, 2012 posting referencing a Canadian government investment in the company’s technology.

As I was browsing the Integran website I found this on the company’s homepage,

[downloaded from http://www.integran.com/default.aspx]

[downloaded from http://www.integran.com/default.aspx]

The quintessential Canadian enterpreneur’s dream, creating an ‘unbreakable’ hockey stick that never gets ‘tired’. According to a Nov. 7, 2013 posting on the Integran News Blog, the hockey stick was a Kickstarter project,

Congratulations to our partners, Colt Hockey, for meeting and exceeding their goal on Kickstarter to develop a higher performance and more durable composite hockey stick with PowerMetal Technologies.  The project exceeded expectations with over $100,000 raised from almost 500 supporters.

This news item seemed particularly à propos during the 2014 Olympics. Good luck to the Canadian women’s and men’s teams!

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s (OECD) report on responsible development of nanotechnology plus news about upcoming survey on nanotechnology commercialization

I stumbled onto this OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation for Development) information in the context of research on another, unrelated, story about the current state of nanotechnology standards and regulations (Dec. 23, 2013 news item on Nanotechnology Now) which is not likely to be written up here.  Getting back to this posting, I found a report from the OECD’s Working Party on Nanotechnology dated Nov. 29, 2013 and titled: RESPONSIBLE DEVELOPMENT OF NANOTECHNOLOGY
Summary Results from a Survey Activity (report no. DSTI/STP/NANO(2013)9/FINAL). This 34 pp. report includes the latest information for 25 countries that agreed to take part in the survey. Here’s the information supplied by Canada,

Canada
While Canada does not have a distinct policy for nanotechnology, the Government of Canada is engaged in a number of activities which specifically address the responsible development of
nanotechnology:
Policy principles for regulation and oversight: Federal departments are working together under the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council Nanotechnology Initiative to strengthen current policy principles to guide government decision-making concerning the responsible development of nanotechnology. These principles address the need to protect human health, safety, and the environment, while not unnecessarily hampering innovation and the exploitation of potential benefits from nanotechnology use.
Research and international collaboration: In collaboration with domestic and international partners, the Government of Canada is actively involved in research and other activities to assess the environmental, health, and safety aspects of nanomaterials and to develop appropriate and internationally compatible approaches for their responsible development and application (e.g. through safety assessment work at the OECD, ISO/IEC nanotechnology standards development, bilateral regulatory co-ordination, and government research and government-funded extramuralresearch).
Development of new policy tools: In October 2011, Health Canada introduced a Working Definition of Nanomaterials to provide a tool to assist the Government to gather safety information about nanomaterials in support of Health Canada’s mandate. The Working Definition is not an additional source of authority, but applies within existing regulatory frameworks that allow for obtaining information (www.hc-sc.gc.ca/sr-sr/pubs/nano/pol-eng.php).
Federal science and technology (S&T) strategies: Federal strategies for S&T research recognise the interconnection between responsible innovation, regulation, and socioeconomic development. Through its 2007 strategy, Mobilising Science and Technology to Canada’s Advantage, for example, the Government of Canada is committed to ensuring the responsible development of nanotechnology. Federal strategies set out the general priority areas for government S&T research support (www.science.gc.ca/S&T_Reports-WS5F25C99B-1_En.htm). [Ed. Note: I would describe the information as statistical data rather than strategy and,in fact, the webpage you’re being directed to is titled: Science and Technology Data.)
• Interdepartmental collaboration and coordination: Federal science-based departments and agencies (SBDAs) are engaged in an initiative to foster interdepartmental collaboration and coordination of activities for the responsible governance of nanotechnology. The results of this initiative will inform SBDA work and activities concerning innovation, regulation, public engagement and research.
External collaboration and coordination: Federal departments and agencies collaborate with external partners, such as provincial nanotechnology associations, on issues related to the responsible development of nanotechnology. (p. 9)

I mentioned the Canada-United States Regulatory Cooperation Council Nanotechnology Initiative in a June 26, 2013 posting.

As for this OECD report, there’s always the question, What constitutes ‘responsible’ development? The OECD report provides an answer,

For the purpose of this activity the responsible development of nanotechnology was described as actions to stimulate the growth of nanotechnology applications in diverse sectors of the economy, while addressing the potential risks and the ethical and societal challenges the technology might raise. Policy and initiatives for the responsible development of nanotechnology aim both at supporting research (and/or business activities) and implementing effective legal and regulatory frameworks in order to assure that risk and safety standards are met. They also aim at supporting and stimulating the debate on the place of science and technology in society by engaging with the public on social and ethical issues. As nanotechnology develops, countries and regions have begun to develop, refine and/or articulate regulatory approaches to support the responsible development of nanotechnology. (p. 7)

The question as to which countries have a specific policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology is answered at length (from the OECD report),

All participating delegations responded to the questions on whether a dedicated policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology was in place or if nanotechnology was addressed as part of other policies; and whether a dedicated research programme for nanotechnology was in place or if nanotechnology formed a part of other research programmes.

Many delegations reported a specific policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology, with 11 delegations, out of the 25 participating, indicating the development of a policy brief, a regulatory framework, a legislative framework and/or an overall strategy for the responsible development of nanotechnology. All of these delegations reported that the policy had already been implemented. Some of the delegations that indicated a dedicated policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology also indicated that nanotechnology was included within other policies.

Where there was a dedicated policy for nanotechnology, the policy operated at the national level in all cases with the exception of Spain, which indicated that there was a nanotechnology policy in some of its regions, in parallel with the national dedicated nanotechnology policy for R&D and innovation.

Nine delegations [Canada was one of the nine delegations] indicated there was no dedicated policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology, but those delegations indicated that nanotechnology was included as part of other policies.

Two delegations indicated there was neither a dedicated policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology nor a policy of which nanotechnology was a part. However, these delegations either reported a dedicated research programme on nanotechnology, or that nanotechnology had been recognised as a strategic research area.

Finally, three delegations, out of the 25 participating, indicated that a policy for the responsible development of nanotechnology was under development (Sweden, Turkey, and the United Kingdom) with publication planned for 2013-2014. For those countries, nanotechnology is currently included under the general umbrella of science and technology policy.

The majority of delegations highlighted the importance of collaboration and co-operation across- ministries, departments and agencies to ensure responsible and efficient development of the technology. Indeed, nanotechnology was expected to impact on a variety of industrial and economic sectors; this cross- sectoral nature appears to be a challenge for policy makers who require the involvement of all governmental stakeholders likely to be impacted by nanotechnology development. The majority of delegations involved a number of relevant ministries and departments in the development of their strategies for the responsible development of nanotechnology. This broad involvement was noted as a clear requirement in order to succeed in the development of nanotechnology.

… (pp. 7-8)

Finally, there is an OECD survey currently underway regarding nanotechnology commercialization according to a Dec. 20, 2013 notice on the Nanotechnology Industries Association (NIA) website (Note: A link has been removed),

NIA Members Consultation: OECD WPN Survey on Nanotechnology Commercialisation Policy – Deadline: 3 January 2014
Posted on 20 Dec 2013

The Working Party on Nanotechnology (WPN) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is undertaking a project examining policies that support the commercialisation of nanotechnology research. It aims to identify:

Which existing government policies help companies efforts in commercialisation;
How significant this support is; and
What else governments could do/do more of, that would most significantly increase the commercialisation of nanotechnology research.

As part of its role within the Business and Industry Advisory Committee (BIAC), NIA is asking its members to provide their views to the project via a short questionnaire.

Participating members have the option to remain anonymous, with their identity and other information kept confidential by the project.

The findings from the questionnaire responses will be presented in a final OECD WPN Report and will be made available to all participants in the new year.

Only NIA members have access to the questionnaire and I cannot find any mention of it on the OECD website although I did stumble on this delightful page titled: OECD Working Party on Nanotechnology: Second meeting of the Working Party on Nanotechnology, which contains a number of documents including one which outlines a 2007 Canadian project: Nanotechnology Pilot Survey by Statistics Canada.

I hope to hear about this commercialization survey in a more timely fashion than I’ve been managing lately. In any event, it’s nice to get caught up on the Canadian nanotechnology scene.

On a related front: In March 2013 the OECD and the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) held a joint symposium about assessing nanotechnology’s economic impacts. My Sept. 19, 2013 posting features the final report on the symposium. There’s also my July 23, 2012 interview with Vanessa Clive, Industry Canada’s Nanotechnology Policy Advisor and one of the symposium organizers. Finally, there’s the OECD’s 2010 report, The Impacts of Nanotechnology on Companies: Policy Insights from Case Studies. This report was co-designed and co-led by Vanessa, one of her Canadian colleagues and a Swiss colleague. The report itself was written by OECD staff as per Vanessa’s comments in my March 29, 2012 posting.

Final report on joint OECD/NNI report on assessing nanotechnology’s economic impact

In March 2012, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the US National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI) held a symposium on assessing the economic impacts of nanotechnology, which was hosted by American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in Washington, DC.  Lynn Bergeson announced the release of the symposium’s final report in her Sept. 16, 2013 posting on the Nanotechnology Now website.

The title of the final report published by the OECD is Symposium on Assessing the Economic  Impact of Nanotechnology: Synthesis Report. I have excerpted some information including this introductory paragraph from the executive summary of this 81 pp report,

Governments have a fiscal and social responsibility to ensure that limited research and development resources are used wisely and cost-effectively in support of social, economic, and scientific aspirations. As a result of significant public and private investments in nanotechnology during the past decade and an expanding array of commercial applications, the field of nanotechnology has matured to the point of showing significant potential to help societies achieve the shared goal of improving efficiencies and accelerating progress in a range of economic sectors, including medicine, manufacturing, and energy. Countries that wish to promote the continued responsible development of nanotechnology will, however, need quantitative data on the economic impact of nanotechnology to guide further investment and policy decisions. Few widely accepted economic impact assessments have been conducted, however, and there are many questions regarding the best methodologies to be used. (p. 4)

The attendees considered the challenges associated with evaluating the impact of nanotechnology, some of which are common to emerging technologies in general and some or which are specific to nanotechnology (from the report),

The attendees also considered the question of a definition for nanotechnology. While operational definitions are developed at national or regional levels, e.g. for statistical or regulatory purposes, there are relatively few internationally agreed upon definitions or classifications for nanotechnology or its products and processes. Such definitions are essential for developing a methodology for an economic impact assessment and/or to facilitate data collection. Participants mentioned that definitions should be flexible so that they facilitate the development and valuation of the technology; they also noted that definitions might vary in different contexts or sectors.

Additional issues were raised:

 Its multipurpose, enabling nature makes measuring the impact of nanotechnology difficult. It can be fundamental to a product’s key functionality (e.g. battery charge time or capacity) but ancillary to the value chain (E.g. represent a small portion of the final product or process). Nanotechnology is also likely to have a range of incremental impacts on goods and services as well as existing manufacturing techniques. This requires understanding the value added at different stages of the production chain.

 Nanotechnology’s impact is often intermingled with that of many other interventions and technologies so that determining its precise role can be difficult.

 The large and varied amount of data linked to nanotechnology development may lead to difficulties in cleaning and manipulating the data meaningfully.

 Confidential business information and the proprietary nature of products and services may make it difficult to obtain information from industry. Moreover, it is not clear how a nanotechnology company or a company using nanotechnology is defined or defines itself or to what extent companies, universities and associate institutions are involved in exploiting and developing nanotechnology.

 For now, data are mainly collected through surveys. It is important to weigh the benefits against the additional workload that surveys place on administrations, research institutes and industries. Information should be obtained efficiently, focusing on the data of greatest interest for assessing the value of the technology.

 The nanotechnology policy landscape is evolving. It is important to consider non-specific, rather than nanotechnology-specific, funding strategies and policies when assessing economic impacts such as return on investment.

While certain issues may be resolved through improvements and over time, some restrict the ability to conduct valid nanotechnology impact assessments, such as the complex relationship between science, innovation and the economy; the interaction between public and private actors; the role of other factors in technology development and innovation; and the time lag between investments and their returns. (p. 8)

Of course the main issue being addressed was the development of tools/instruments to assess nanotechnology’s economic impact (from the report),

Some steps have been taken towards assessing the impact of nanotechnology. Examples mentioned during the symposium include the U.S. STAR METRICS database, which uses an input/output approach to determine the outputs of federal funding of science and technology, and Brazil’s Lattes system, in which researchers, students and institutions share information about their interests and backgrounds to facilitate information sharing and collaboration. The Lattes system is also intended to aid in the design of science, technology and innovation policies and to help understand the social and economic impacts of previous investments. DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, United Kingdom) values a given nanotechnology product in monetary terms against an incumbent and thus calculates additional value added over current technology.

Other valuation methods mentioned included the “traditional” cost/ benefit analysis (often accompanied by scenario development for immature technologies such as nanotechnology) and life cycle assessment (LCA). LCA addresses the impact of nanotechnology along the entire product value chain. It is important to conduct LCAs as early as possible in product development to define the full value of a product using nanotechnology. Value chain assessments can also help address the challenge of determining the role of nanotechnology in a final product, where economic value is most commonly assessed. (p. 9)

Participants recognised the difficulty of developing a “one size fits all” methodology. The data collected and the indicators and the methodologies chosen need to fit the situation. Precisely defining the objectives of the impact assessment is critical: “What do we want to measure?” (e.g. the impact of a specific nanotechnology investment or the impact of a nano-enabled replacement product on environmental performance). “What outcomes do we want from the analysis?” (e.g. monetary value and GDP growth or qualitative measures of environmental and social benefits).

Input indicators (e.g. R&D investment, infrastructure) are the easiest to collect; they provide information on the development of a technology in a given region, country or globally. Output indicators, such as patents and publications, provide information on the trajectories of a technology and on key areas of innovation. The most useful for policy makers are indicators of impact, but high-quality data, especially quantitative data, are difficult to collect. Indicators of impact provide a basis for assessing direct (market share, growth of companies, new products, wealth creation) and indirect impacts (welfare gains, consumer surplus). The economic and social impact of nanotechnology goes beyond what can be measured with existing statistics and traditional surveys. A pilot survey by the Russian Federation plans to examine nanotechnology issues that are not necessarily covered by traditional statistical surveys, such as technology transfer and linkages between different segments of the national innovation system. The OECD Working Party of National Experts on Science and Technology Indicators is also working on the development of a statistical framework for the measurement of emerging, enabling and general purpose technologies, which includes the notion of impact.
While quantitative measures may be preferable, impact assessments based on qualitative indicators using methods such as technology assessment scenarios and mapping of value chains can also provide valuable information.

I haven’t read the entire report yet but the material after the executive summary bears a similarity to field notes. Generally in reports like this everything is stated in an impersonal third person with the speaker being mentioned only in the header for the section  so the contents have an  authority associated with holy books. While I haven’t seen any quotes, the speakers here are noted as having said such and such, e.g., “Mr. Tassey suggested a “technology-element” model as an alternative means of driving policy and managing the R&D cycle.” (p. 15) It’s not unheard of, just unusual.

For anyone interested in the earlier reports and/or in the Canadian participation in this 2012 symposium, there’s an interview with Vanessa Clive, Industry Canada, Nanotechnology Policy Advisor in my July 23, 2012 posting where she discusses the symposium and offers links to documents used as background material for the symposium.

Does the new Minister of State for Science and Technology Gary Rickford really need research experience?

Gary Goodyear,  Canada’s Minister of State for Science and Technology since 2008, was shuffled away and Gary Rickford, fell into his place as of July 15, 2013 in the Harper government’s latest cabinet shuffle (largely viewed as a diversionary tactic in the wake of a Senate expense scandal).

Sadly, the Goodyear/Rickford change didn’t make many waves here in Canada.The mainstream media has barely mentioned it and the Canadian Science Policy Centre (CSPC), where one would expect something, has no mention of it (as of 10:30 am PDT July 17, 2013) on their website homepage. As the CSPC is volunteer-run, I imagine this is an issue of not having enough time during the summer while being in the preparatory stages of the fall 2013 conference. Still, that particular omission does seem a bit odd.

There was, however, a mainstream media plea before the shuffle was announced. Jordan Himelfarb made his plea  in a July 12, 2013 opinion piece for the Toronto Star,

A wise next step: get rid of Gary Goodyear.

For fans of science, this will be an uncontroversial suggestion. Goodyear, the minister of state for science and technology, has presided over the most retrograde federal S&T policy in memory.

During his tenure, the government shuttered the office of the National Science Adviser, blocked asbestos from a UN hazardous chemicals list on which it clearly belongs, gutted the Fisheries Act, gutted the Navigable Waters Protection Act, set out to weaken the Species at Risk Act, killed the long-form census, eroded Environment Canada’s ability to monitor climate change, earned an international reputation for muzzling scientists and, at a great potential cost, defunded the world’s leading freshwater research centre [Experimental Lakes Ares]. (I stop there arbitrarily. The list really does go on and on.)

A change has been made but whether there will be any change is a bit of a mystery. I’ve found some coverage  and commentary about the change in the US and by Canadian science blogger, Eight Crayon Science. As the US coverage is more neutral (relatively) and general in tone, I’ll start there. Wayne Kondro in a July 15, 2013 article for Science Insider notes,

Former lawyer and nurse Greg Rickford has become Canada’s science minister as Prime Minister Stephen Harper shuffled his Cabinet on Monday. The move is an attempt to deflect attention from an expenses scandal that has rocked Harper’s Conservative government and left pundits calling for a reboot prior to the expected national elections in 2015. It has left science associations scrambling to learn a bit about the new junior minister.

…  The position reports to Industry Minister James Moore, who was promoted from the Canadian Heritage Ministry and whose new portfolio oversees all of Canada’s science agencies with the exception of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research …

David Bruggeman in his July 16, 2013 posting on the Pasco Phronesis blog put this news into an international context (Note: Links have been removed),

While the possibility of a new U.K. science minister is only rumor at the moment, the Canadian government has just reshuffled its Cabinet.  Minister for Science and Technology Gary Goodyear is out, and replacing him is Greg Rickford. Minister Rickford has previously served in ministerial positions responsible for development in northern Canada.  While he does have experience as a nurse, like his predecessor Minister Rickford does not have much research experience.

Mention of Rickford’s lack of research experience is made in Kondro’s article and by Canadian science blogger Eight Crayon Science in a July 16, 2013 posting which also details changes in other science portfolios,

We here in Canada had quite a major cabinet shuffle yesterday, precipitated in part due to the departure of a few major cabinet ministers. So, the five positions with the most sciency-ness are now held by:

  • Minister of State for Science and Technology: Greg Rickford (Kenora) replaces Gary Goodyear (Cambridge)
  • Minister of the Environment: Leona Aglukkaq (Nunavut) replaces Peter Kent (Thornhill)
  • Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: Gail Shea (Egmont) replaces Keith Ashfield (Fredericton)
  • Minister of Natural Resources: Joe Oliver (Eglington-Lawrence) remains in the position
  • Minister of Health: Rona Ambrose (Edmonton-Spruce Grove) replaces Leona Aglukkaq (Nunavut)

Let’s go one by one. I’m pleased that Goodyear is gone, because having a science minister who dances around the question of whether or not he believes in evolution is frankly embarrassing. Rickford has worked previously as a nurse (though his law degrees are more emphasized in the bios I’ve seen), which is a step in the right direction. But he’s the MP for Kenora, the riding of the Experimental Lakes Area, and he was previously a vocal proponent for closing the site. So, we’re not exactly off to a flying start.

A sort of secondary (or at least a more chronic issue than a Thing That Needs Attending To Immediately) is the continual lack of MPs with strong science backgrounds. *Lawyers and bankers and business folk of all stripes are a dime a dozen in Parliament, but doctors are rare, and scientists and engineers are even rarer. This isn’t to say that a *lawyer cannot be an excellent Minister of State for Science and Technology, but an MP with a more direct background in science — whether that’s industrial science, academic science, theoretical or applied science — will bring a more relevant perspective to the portfolio. Having worked as a scientist will likely give a Minister of Science a more tangible view of how policy set forth by their portfolio affects Canadian science, scientists, and citizens than a working as an attorney would, and I think that perspective is important.

I’m not entirely in agreement with this notion that a Science and Technology Minister needs direct experience of research as something will have to be sacrificed.  Which skill set do you want to sacrifice: research, administrative, political maneuvering, and/or social? It’s rare to get someone who’s equally good at all of these. Also, someone from outside the research community is less likely to have enemies within that community.

Personally, I’d like to see more science awareness in Parliament as per Preston Manning’s suggestion about the science community reaching out to politicians (Part 1 of an interview with Manning in a Sept. 10, 2009 posting and Part 2 of the Manning interview in a Sept. 11, 2009 posting). There are, for example, UK programmes that address this issue including one where young scientists shadow politicians (my Nov. 26, 2010 posting).

The appointment I find a bit more disturbing, at this point,  is James Moore’s to Industry Canada [ETA July 17, 2013 at 3:55 pm PDT: Science and Technology is a junior ministry included with the senior and important Industry ministry]. Moore once characterized Cory Doctorow, a science fiction writer, and others as ‘extremist radicals’ for 0pposing his (Moore’s) maximalist approach to a then upcoming piece of  copyright legislation (my June 25, 2010 posting) at a public event and later lied about the comment. Unfortunately for Moore, there was video evidence. Given the emphasis on patents in the innovation discussion, Moore’s previous comments on maximizing copyright are not comforting if one feels that even current patent regimes are hindering innovation and by extension the pursuit of science.

During Moore’s tenure as Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages he expressed his displeasure with an exhibition about sex at  the Canada Science and Technology Museum in Ottawa (from my June 13, 2012 posting),

It’s time now to add sex to the mix. Canada’s Science and Technology Museum is currently hosting SEX: A Tell-all Exhibition, which has caused some consternation in our country’s capital (Ottawa), from the May 16, 2012 article by Althia Raj for the **Huffington Post (Canada),

Canada’s Science and Technology Museum has abruptly raised the age limit for a controversial sex exhibit after Heritage Minister James Moore’s office raised concerns and more than 50 individuals complained.

Moore’s office called museum president Denise Amyot to complain that Sex: A Tell-All Exhibition [sic] is completely inappropriate.

“The purpose of the Museum of Science and Technology is to foster scientific and technological literacy throughout Canada,” said Moore’s spokesperson James Maunder.

“It is clear this exhibit does not fit within that mandate. This content cannot be defended, and is insulting to taxpayers,” he said.

This show had already been run in Montréal (where it was developed by the Montréal Science Centre for children 12 years and older) and in Regina (Saskatachewan), without significant distress or insult.

Rickford is going be dealing with a boss who has some very definite ideas, is not afraid to intervene whether it’s appropriate or not, and lies under pressure.

Getting back to Goodyear, while there are many criticisms  Canadian science blogger and well known mathematician,  Nassif Ghoussoub, had good things to say about Goodyear’s ministership in a Nov. 16, 2011 posting and about Goodyear’s attitude to science in a May 17, 2012 posting on his Piece of Mind blog.

For a more extensive view and explanation of some of the concerns regarding Goodyear’s and the Harper government’s science activities, there’s this May 3, 2011 posting by David Ng (science literacy academic at the Michael Smith Laboratories of the University of British Columbia) on the Discover magazine website. H/T to Phil Plait at Slate.com for the Ng article.

* A minor typo was corrected, laywer to lawyer.

** An amusing type  was corrected, Huggington to Huffington.

ETA July 18, 2013: Earlier today, I found this July 15, 2013 article analyzing the situation with the news that the cabinet shuffle involved the ministers for Industry Canada and its junior portfolio Science and Technology written by Ivan Semeniuk for the Globe and Mail.

Nanotechnology for Green Innovation report, Canada, and the OECD’s Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials

I will get to the report in a moment but since it led me on a magical mystery tour through the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) and its new website and assorted organizational confusions, I thought I’d share those first.

February 2012 marks the last report from the OECD’s Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials that I can find. As well, the OECD appears to have changed its website recently (since Feb. 2012) and I find searching it less rewarding.

There’s more, it seems that the Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials either no longer exists or has been subsumed as part of the Working Party on Nanotechnology. I mourn the old nanomaterials working party as I found much valuable information there about the Canadian situation that was available nowhere else. Oddly, Industry Canada still has a webpage devoted to the OECD’s Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials but the OECD link on the Industry Canada leads you to a database,

The OECD Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials (WPMN ) was established in September, 2006 in order to foster international co-operation in health and environmental safety-related aspects of manufactured nanomaterials. Environment Canada represents the Government of Canada at the WPMN, supported by other interested federal departments and agencies, including Industry Canada, and stakeholders. For more information on the work of the WPMN, please visit the WPMN website or contact Environment Canada.

Nostalgia buffs can find all 37 of the Working Party on Manufactured Nanomaterials reports here on the Nanotechnology Industries Association website (save one) or here on the OECD’s Publications in the Series on the Safety of Manufactured Nanomaterials webpage.

A new ‘green’ nanotechnology and innovation report was announced in a June 18, 2013 news item on Nanowerk (Note: A link has been removed),

A new paper by the OECD Working Party on Nanotechnology (“Nanotechnology for Green Innovation”; pdf) brings together information collected through discussions and projects undertaken relevant to the development and use of nanotechnology for green innovation. It relies in particular on preliminary results from the WPN project on the Responsible Development of Nanotechnology and on conclusions from a symposium, organised by the OECD WPN together with the United States National Nanotechnology Initiative, which took place in March 2012 in Washington DC, United States, on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology. [emphases mine]  It also draws on material from the four background papers that were developed for the symposium. The background papers were:

“Challenges for Governments in Evaluating the Return on Investment from Nanotechnology and its Broader Economic Impact” by Eleanor O’Rourke and Mark Morrison of the Institute of Nanotechnology, United Kingdom;

“Finance and Investor Models in Nanotechnology” by Tom Crawley, Pekka Koponen, Lauri Tolvas and Terhi Marttila of Spinverse, Finland;

“The Economic Contributions of Nanotechnology to Green and Sustainable Growth” by Philip Shapira and Jan Youtie, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, United States; and

“Models, Tool and Metrics Available to Assess the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology” by Katherine Bojczuk and Ben Walsh of Oakdene Hollins, United Kingdom.

The purpose of the paper is to provide background information for future work by the WPN on the application of nanotechnology to green innovation.

I wrote about the March 2012 symposium in a March 29, 2012 posting,

I was hoping for a bit more detail about how one would go about including nanotechnology-enabled products in this type of economic impact assessment but this is all I could find (from the news release),

In their paper, Youtie and Shapira cite several examples of green nanotechnology, discuss the potential impacts of the technology, and review forecasts that have been made.

I checked both Philip Shapira‘s webpage and Jan Youtie‘s at Georgia Tech to find that neither lists this latest work, which hopefully includes additional detail. I’m hopeful there’ll be a document published in the proceedings for this symposium and access will be possible.

So, I’m very happy to see this 2013 report and  I have three different ways to access it,

  1. OECD library page for Nanotechnology for Green Innovation
  2. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/download/5k450q9j8p8q.pdf?expires=1371578116&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=F308B436A883BF6533E66C19182ECF17 which features a title page identifying this is as  an OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers No. 5 (this one lists 35 pp)
  3. http://search.oecd.org/officialdocuments/displaydocumentpdf/?cote=DSTI/STP/NANO%282013%293/FINAL&docLanguage=En which is identified with this Unclassified DSTI/STP/NANO(2013)3/FINAL and a publication date of June 13, 2013 (this one lists 34 pp)

The following comments are based on a very quick read through the report. Pulling together four papers and trying to create a cohesive and coherent single report after the fact is difficult and this report shows some of the stresses. One  of the problems is that 34 or 35 pp., depending on which version you’re reading, isn’t enough to cover the very broad topic indicated by the report’s title. I couldn’t find a clear general statement about government policies. For example, there are various countries with policies and there are trade blocks such as the European Union which also has policies. Additionally, there may be other jurisdictions. All of which contribute an environment which makes ‘green’ innovation nano or otherwise a challenge but no mention is made of this challenge. Further, I don’t recall seeing any mention of patents, which I’d expect would be a major talking point in a paper with innovation in its title. If there was mention of intellectual property, it made no impact on me, odd, especially where nanotechnology is concerned.

The report does have some good specifics and  it is worthwhile reading. For example, I found the section on lithium-ion batteries quite informative.

In any event, I’m not really the audience for this document, the “purpose of the paper is to provide background information for future work by the WPN on the application of nanotechnology to green innovation.”

ETA June 18, 2013 6:00 pm PDT: Here’s a link to the new OECD nanotechnology page, STInano

Science, women and gender in Canada (part 1 of 2)

Titled Strengthening Canada’s Research Capacity: The Gender Dimension; The Expert Panel on Women in University Research, the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA) released their assessment on Nov. 21, 2012, approximately 20 months after the incident which tangentially occasioned it (from the Strengthening … webpage) Note: I have added a reference and link to a report on CERC (Canada Excellence Research Chairs) gender issues in the following excerpt,

After the notable absence of female candidates in the Canada Excellence Research Chairs (CERC) program, the Minister of Industry, in March 2010, struck an ad-hoc panel to examine the program’s selection process. The ad-hoc panel found that the lack of female representation was not due to active choices made during the CERC selection process. [Dowdeswell, E., Fortier, S., & Samarasekera, I. (2010). Report to the Minister of Industry of the Ad Hoc Panel on CERC Gender Issues. Ottawa (ON):Industry Canada.] As a result, the Council of Canadian Academies received a request to undertake an assessment of the factors that influence university research careers of women, both in Canada and internationally.

To conduct the assessment, the Council convened an expert panel of 15 Canadian and international experts from diverse fields, which was chaired by Dr. Lorna Marsden, President emeritus and Professor, York University.

For anyone unfamiliar with the CERC programme,

The Canada Excellence Research Chairs (CERC) Program awards world-class researchers up to $10 million over seven years to establish ambitious research programs at Canadian universities.

My commentary is primarily focused on the assessment and not the preceding report from the ad hoc panel, as well, I am not commenting on every single aspect of the report. I focus on those elements of the report that caught my attention.

There is much to appreciate in this assessment/report unfortunately the cover image cannot be included. By choosing a photograph, the designer immediately entered shark-infested waters, metaphorically speaking. From a semiotic perspective, photographs are a rich and much studied means of criticism. Having a photograph of an attractive, middle-aged white woman with blonde hair (a MILF, depending on your tastes)  who’s surrounded by ‘adoring’ students (standing in for her children?) on the cover of this assessment suggests an obliviousness to nuance that is somewhat unexpected. Happily, the image is not reflective of the content.

The report lays out the basis for this assessment,

There are many reasons for concern at the lack of proportional representation of women in senior positions in all facets of our society, including politics, law, medicine, the arts, business, and academia. The underrepresentation of women in any of these areas is a concern considering the fundamental Canadian values of equality, fairness, and justice, as outlined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the Employment Equity Act. This report focuses on women in academia: the 11,064 women with PhDs who are employed full-time in degree-granting institutions. In comparison, there are 22,875 men in this category (see Table 3.1).1 Besides educating millions of students, these researchers and innovators are working to address the major issues Canada faces in the 21st century, including climate change, demographic shifts, healthcare, social inequality, sustainable natural resources management, cultural survival, as well as the role Canada plays as an international actor. These contributions are in addition to the basic, or knowledge discovery, research that is one of the main duties of academic researchers. In the knowledge economy, a talent pool of Canada’s top thinkers, researchers and innovators is needed to help secure and build Canada’s economic edge. The wider the pool is from which to draw, the more perspectives, experiences, and ideas will be brought to the creative process. [emphasis mine] Arguments for fully including women in research careers range from addressing skills shortages and increasing innovation potential by accessing wider talent pools, to greater market development, stronger financial performance, better returns on human resource investments, and developing a better point from which to compete in the intensifying global talent race. (p. 15 PDF; p. xiii print)

I appreciate the reference to fundamental values in Canadian society as it is important but I suspect the portion I’ve highlighted contains the seeds of an argument that is far more persuasive for power brokers. It was a very smart move.

It is possible to skim this report by simply reading the executive summary and reading the Key Messages page included after each chapter heading, save the final chapter. They’ve done a good job of making this report easy to read if you don’t have too much time but prefer to view the complete assessment rather than an abridged version.

The Chapter 1 Key Messages are,

Chapter Key Messages

• While many reports have focused specifically on women in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics careers, this assessment employs comparative analyses to examine the career trajectories of women researchers across a variety of disciplines. The Panel was able to respond to the charge using a combination of research methods, but their analyses were sometimes hindered by a paucity of key data sets.

• In an attempt not to simply repeat numerous studies of the past on women in research careers, the Panel used a life course model to examine the data from a new perspective. This conceptual framework enabled the Panel to consider the multidimensional nature of human lives as well as the effects of external influences on the career trajectories of women researchers.

• Women are now present in all areas of research, including those areas from which they have previously been absent. Over time, institutions have become more inclusive, and Canadian governments have created policies and legislation to encourage more gender equity. Collective bargaining has contributed to this process. Clearly, the advancement of women in research positions relies on the contributions of individuals, institutions and government.

• Since the 1970s, there has been major progress such that women have been obtaining PhDs and entering the academy as students and faculty at increasing rates. However, women remain underrepresented at the highest levels of academia, as demonstrated by their low numbers in the Canada Research Chairs (CRC) program, and their absence from the Canada Excellence Research Chairs (CERC) program. There is considerable room for improvement in women’s representation as faculty.

• Higher education research and development funding has nearly doubled in the past decade. However, the amount of funding allocated to core grants and scholarship programs varies among the tri-council agencies [SSHRC, Social Science and Humantities Research Council; NSERC, Natural Science and Engineering Research Council; and CIHR, Canadian Institutes of Health Research], with the majority of funds available to researchers sponsored by NSERC and CIHR. This pattern is generally replicated in the Canada Research Chairs and the Canada Excellence Research Chairs programs. As noted in the 2003 Human Rights Complaint regarding the Canada Research Chairs program, women are least represented in the areas of research that are the best funded.  (p. 33 PDF; p. 3 print) [emphasis mine]

This panel in response to the issue of women being least represented in the best funded areas of research elected to do this,

The Panel noted that many reports have focused on women in science, technology, and engineering research careers (due in part to the fact that women have been significantly underrepresented in these fields) yet relatively little attention has been paid to women researchers in the humanities, social sciences, and education. This is despite the fact that 58.6 per cent of doctoral students in these disciplines are women (see Chapter 3), and that their research contributions have profoundly affected the study of poverty, violence, the welfare state, popular culture, and literature, to note only a few examples. Considering this, the Panel’s assessment incorporates a comparative, interdisciplinary analysis, with a focus on the broader category of women in university research. In order to identify the areas where women are the most and least represented, Panellists compiled data and research that describe where Canadian female researchers are — and are not — in terms of both discipline and rank. Where possible, this study also analyzes the situation of women researchers outside of academia so as to paint a clearer picture of female researchers’ career trajectories. (pp. 37/8 PDF; pp. 7/8 print) [emphases mine]

Bringing together all kinds of research where women are both over and under represented and including research undertaken outside the academic environment was thoughtful. I also particularly liked this passage,

American research suggests that holding organizational leaders accountable for implementing equity practices is a particularly effective way of enhancing the diversity of employees (Kalev et al., 2006), indicating that reporting and monitoring mechanisms are key to success. [emphasis mine] The Panel observed that meeting these commitments requires the proper implementation of accountability mechanisms, such as reporting and monitoring schemes. (p. 44 PDF; p. 14 print)

Juxtaposing the comment about leaders being held accountable for equity practices and the  comment I emphasized earlier ” … a talent pool of Canada’s top thinkers, researchers and innovators is needed to help secure and build Canada’s economic edge …” could suggest an emergent theme about leadership and the current discourse about innovation.

To get a sense of which disciplines and what research areas are rewarded within the Canada Research Chair programme read this from the assessment,

Similarly, while 80 per cent of Canada Research Chairs are distributed among researchers in NSERC and CIHR disciplines, SSHRC Chairs represent only 20 per cent of the total — despite the fact that the majority (60 per cent) of the Canadian professoriate come from SSHRC disciplines (Grant & Drakich, 2010). Box 1.1 describes the gendered implications of this distribution, as well as the history of the program. (p. 45 PDF; p. 15 print)

What I find intriguing here isn’t just the disparity. 60% of the researchers are chasing after 20% of the funds (yes, physical sciences are more expensive but those percentages still seem out of line), but that social sciences and the humanities are not really included in the innovation rubric except here in this assessment. Still, despite the inclusion of the visual and performing arts in the State of Science and Technology in Canada, 2012 report issued by the CCA in Sept. 2013 (part 1 of my commentary on that assessment is in this Dec. 28, 2012 posting; part 2 of my commentary is in this Dec. 28, 2012 posting) there is no mention of them in this assessment/report of gender and science.

I did particularly like how the panel approached data collection and analysis,

Coming from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds, Panellists brought with them a range of methodological expertise and preferences. Through a combination of quantitative and qualitative data, the Panel was able to identify and analyze factors that affect the career trajectories of women researchers in Canada (see Appendix 1 for full details). In addition to an extensive literature review of the national and international research and evidence related to the topic, the Panel collected information in the form of data sets and statistics, heard from expert witnesses, conducted interviews with certain stakeholders from academia and industry, and analyzed interview and survey results from their secondary analysis of Canada Research Chairs data (see Appendix 5 for a full description of methodology and results). Together, these methods contributed to the balanced approach that the Panel used to understand the status of women in Canadian university research careers.

In addition, the Panel took an innovative approach to painting a more vibrant picture of the experience of women professors by incorporating examples from academic “life-writing.” Life-writing is the generic name given to a variety of forms of personal narrative — autobiography, biography, personal essays, letters, diaries, and memoirs. Publishing personal testimony is a vital strategy for marginalized groups to claim their voices and tell their own stories, and academic women’s life-writing adds vital evidence to a study of women in university careers (Robbins et al., 2011). The first study of academic life-writing appeared in the U.S. in 2008 (Goodall, 2008); as yet, none exists for Canada.16 Recognizing the benefits of this approach, which focuses on the importance of women’s voices and stories, the Panel chose to weave personal narrative from women academics throughout the body of the report to illuminate the subject matter. As with the data gleaned from the Panel’s secondary analysis of Canada Research Chairs data, these cases highlight the experience of an articulate and determined minority of women who are prepared and positioned to speak out about structural and personal inequities. More comprehensive surveys are required to establish the precise extent of the problems they so effectively illustrate. (pp. 49/50 PDF; pp. 19/20 print)

Nice to note that they include a very broad range of information as evidence. After all, evidence can take many forms and not all evidence can be contained in a table of data nor is all data necessarily evidence. That said there were some other issues with data and evidence,

Despite the extensive literature on the subject, the Panel identified some data limitations. While these limitations made some analyses difficult, the Panel was able to effectively respond to the charge by using the combination of research methods described above. Data limitations identified by the Panel include:

• relatively little research specific to the Canadian context;

• lack of longitudinal data;

• relatively few studies (both quantitative and qualitative) dealing with fields such as the humanities and social sciences;

• lack of data on diversity in Canadian academia, including intersectional data;

• lack of comprehensive data and evidence from the private and government sectors; and

• difficulty in comparing some international data due to differences in disciplinary classifications. (p. 50 PDF; p. 20 print)

I think this does it for part 1 of my commentary.

Council of Canadian Academies tries to answer question: What is the state of Canada’s science culture?

The Council of Canadian Academies is an organization designed to answer questions about science in Canada. From the Council’s About Us webpage on their website,

The Council is an independent, not-for-profit corporation that supports science-based, expert assessments (studies) to inform public policy development in Canada. The Council began operation in 2005 and consists of a Board of Governers, a Scientific Advisory Committee and Secretariat. The Council draws upon the intellectual capital that lies within its three Member Academies the Royal Society of Canada (RSC); the Canadian Academy of Engineering;  and the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences.

Our mission is to contribute to the shaping of evidence-based public policy that is in the public interest. This is achieved by appointing independent, multidisciplinary panels of expert volunteers. The Council’s work encompasses a broad definition of science, incorporating the natural, social and health sciences as well as engineering and the humanities.

Expert Panels directly address the question and sub-questions referred to them. Panel assessments may also identify: emerging issues, gaps in knowledge, Canadian strengths, and international trends and practices. Upon completion, assessments provide government decision-makers, academia and stakeholders with high-quality information required to develop informed and innovative public policy.

Several months ago, Gary Goodyear, Canada’s Minister of State (Science and Technology), requested on behalf of the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation (CSTMC), Natural Resources Canada, and Industry Canada an assessment of science culture in Canada. From the State of Canada’s Science Culture webpage on the Council of Canadian Academies website,

Over the past 30 years, public interest and debate has been steadily growing in Canada and abroad over the need to foster a science culture as part of the national science and technology agenda. In this period, significant government and private investments have contributed to the development of hundreds of individual science culture programs and institutions.

Now more than ever the volume of programs and data support the need for a national examination of issues, such as the performance indicators that best reflect the vitality of Canada’s science culture, and a need to understand where Canada ranks internationally. The expert panel will be asked to consider these and other questions such as what factors influence an interest in science among youth; what are the key components of the informal system that supports science culture; and what strengths and weaknesses exist in the Canadian system.

Assessments of science culture can focus either on science in the general culture, or the culture among scientists. This assessment will focus principally on the former, with additional interest in understanding the underlying connections among entrepreneurship, innovation and science. …

The full assessment process includes a rigorous peer review exercise to ensure the report is objective, balanced and evidence-based. Following the review and approval by the Council’s Board of Governors, the complete report will be made available on the Council’s website in both official languages. …

Question

What is the state of Canada’s science culture?

Sub-questions:

  1. What is the state of knowledge regarding the impacts of having a strong science culture?
  2. What are the indicators of a strong science culture? How does Canada compare with other countries against these indicators? What is the relationship between output measures and major outcome measures?
  3. What factors (e.g., cultural, economic, age, gender) influence interest in science, particularly among youth?
  4. What are the critical components of the informal system that supports science culture (roles of players, activities, tools and programs run by science museums, science centres, academic and not-for-profit organizations and the private sector)? What strengths and weaknesses exist in Canada’s system?
  5. What are the effective practices that support science culture in Canada and in key competitor countries?

Hopefully, the expert panel will have a definition of some kind for “science culture.”

After waiting what seems to be an unusually long period, the Council announced the chair for the  “science culture” expert panel (from the CCA Dec. 19, 2012 news release),

Arthur Carty to Serve as Expert Panel Chair on the State of Canada’s Science Culture

The Council is pleased to announce the appointment of Dr. Arthur Carty, O.C., as Chair of the Expert Panel on the State of Canada’s Science Culture. In 2011, the Minister of State (Science and Technology) on behalf of the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation (CSTMC), Natural Resources Canada, and Industry Canada requested the Council conduct an in-depth, evidence-based assessment on the state of Canada’s science culture.

As Chair of the Council’s Expert Panel, Dr. Carty will work with a multidisciplinary group of experts, to be appointed by the Council, to address the following question: What is the state of Canada’s science culture?

Dr. Carty is currently the Executive Director of the Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology at the University of Waterloo. Dr. Carty also serves as Special Advisor to the President on international science and technology collaboration, and as Research Professor in the Department of Chemistry. Prior to this, Dr. Carty served as Canada’s first National Science Advisor to the Prime Minister and to the Government of Canada from 2004-2007 and as President of the National Research Council Canada from 1994-2004.

You can find out more on Carty’s biography webpage, on the CCA website,

Arthur Carty is the Executive Director of the Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology at the University of Waterloo, Special Advisor to the President on international science and technology collaboration, and Research Professor in the Department of Chemistry

From 2004-2008, Dr. Carty served as Canada’s first National Science Advisor to the Prime Minister and to the Government of Canada. Prior to this appointment, he was President of the National Research Council Canada for 10 years. Before this, he spent 2 years at Memorial University and then 27 years at the University of Waterloo, where he was successively Professor of Chemistry, Director of the Guelph-Waterloo Centre for Graduate Work in Chemistry and Biochemistry, Chair of the Department of Chemistry, and Dean of Research.

….

Carty’s profile page on the Waterloo Institute of Nanotechnology (WIN) website offers the same information but in more detail.

It’s difficult to divine much from the biographical information about Carty as it is very purpose-oriented to impress the reader with Carty’s international and national involvements in the field of science advice and collaboration. Carty may have extensive experience with multi-disciplinary teams and an avid interest in a science culture that includes informal science education and the arts and humanities, unfortunately, it’s not visible on either the CCA or WIN website biographies.

Hopefully,  Carty and the CCA will assemble a diverse expert panel. (Warning: blatant self-promotion ahead) If they are looking for a person of diverse personal and professional interests

  • who has an MA in Creative Writing (nonfiction and fiction) and New Media from De Montfort University in Leicester, UK and
  • a BA (Communication – Honors) from Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, Canada and
  • who has built up one of the largest and longest-running independent science blogs in the country thereby contributing to science culture in Canada,
  • neatly combining the social sciences, the humanities, and an informed perspective on science and science culture in Canada in one person,

they may want to contact me at [email protected] I have more details in the CV and can supply references.

Industry Canada, Vanessa Clive, nanotechnology, and assessing economic impacts

I have long (one year) wanted to feature an interview with Vanessa Clive, Nanotechnology Policy Advisor; Industry Sector, at Industry Canada but have been distracted from sending interview questions until about several weeks ago.  (Sometimes, I lose track *of time.)

Here then are the interview questions  I asked and the answers Vanessa very kindly provided,

1.      Could you describe your role? 

Industry Canada’s mandate is to help make Canadian industry more productive and competitive in the global economy, thus improving the economic and social well-being of Canadians.  As an emerging/nascent technology, nanotechnology can help contribute towards this objective.  Our role vis a vis nanotechology is to:

  • better understand Canadian capabilities, strengths and expertise
  • contribute to effective policy development
  • contribute to the development of a supportive business environment for innovation and commercialization

2.       Recently, you helped organize an event in Washington, DC (International Symposium on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology, March 27-28, 2012). Could you give a brief overview of why this was needed, who attended, & what happened? 

The Symposium was organized jointly by the OECD Working Party on Nanotechnology (WPN) and the National Nanotechnology Coordinating Office for the U.S. National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), and hosted by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). I was a member of the OECD WPN Steering Committee which worked with the NNI to organize the event.

Some 200 people participated from OECD and non-OECD countries, representing a broad spectrum of sectors, industries, and areas of expertise. In addition to plenary sessions, industry break-out discussions were organized on advanced materials, food packaging, transportation, nanomedicine, energy, and electronics.

The decision to hold the event recognized the important potential contribution of nanotechnology to innovation, as reflected in rising R&D investments over the past decade. OECD member countries wish to explore ways to assess returns to these investments and the broader economic impacts of nanotechnology more generally, as well as the challenges for effective innovation policy development in this area.

The agenda and presentations can be viewed at http://nano.gov/node/729. Four background papers on related topics were also commissioned for the Symposium and can be found at the same site.

3.      What can be said about nanotechnology’s economic impacts and what information (e.g. bibliometric measures, no. of patents, etc.) is being used to arrive at that conclusion? 

Given the still relatively early stage of developments, the range of potential applications, and other factors, there are major challenges to estimating potential impacts. Holding this Symposium was intended to provide a start to develop useful indicators and other assessment tools.

4.      So, how is Canada doing relative to the international scene?

As discussed above, given the lack of measures, it is difficult to assess our relative position. However, Canadian federal and provincial governments have invested increasing amounts in nanotechnology R&D over the past decade or so. These investments have supported an array of government funding programs and contributed to the establishment of a world-class R&D infrastructure and research community and a growing number of companies involved in nanotechnology across industry sectors in Canada.

5.      Is there anything that stands out from the symposium?

It was clear from the level of attendance, presentations, and discussions which took place, that there is widespread interest in the symposium topics. To learn more about the event, I would encourage interested people to visit the website where presentations and background papers are posted – http://nano.gov/node/729.

6.      Are there any Industry Canada plans in the works for developing new assessment tools given that, unlike many countries, Canada does not have a national nanotechnology funding hub? 

We are working with the OECD to develop useful tools that would enable us to estimate or measure the economic impacts of nanotechnology.

7.      Are there any plans for a nanotechnology ‘road map’ similar to the digital media road map? Or perhaps there’s something else in the works?

Industry Canada is focused on assisting Canadian industry to grow, compete in the global economy, and create jobs. In order to do so we are building the department’s knowledge base about Canadian activities and capabilities, contributing to sound policy development in domestic and international for a, and contributing to building a supportive business environment for responsible innovation and commercialization in this field.

Thank you for the insight into the Canadian nanotechnology situation and the issues around economic impacts as per Industry Canada and tor taking the time to do this . Also, I am very happy to see the link to the presentations and background papers for the March 2012 nanotechnology and economic impacts event in Washington, DC (first mentioned in my Jan. 27, 2012 posting).

I did briefly visit the website which is a US National Nanotechnology Initiative website. The event page for which Vanessa provided a link hosts the background papers and links to other pages hosting the presentations and the agenda providing a rich resource for anyone interested in the issue of nanotechnology and its possible economic impacts.

* Changed preposition from ‘to’ to ‘of’ on Sept. 19, 2013.

Nanotechnology’s economic impacts and full lifecycle assessments

A paper presented at the International Symposium on Assessing the Economic Impact of Nanotechnology, held March 27 – 28, 2012 in Washington, D.C advises that assessments of the economic impacts of nanotechnology need to be more inclusive. From the March 28, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

“Nanotechnology promises to foster green and sustainable growth in many product and process areas,” said Shapira [Philip Shapira], a professor with Georgia Tech’s [US]  School of Public Policy and the Manchester Institute of Innovation Research at the Manchester Business School in the United Kingdom. “Although nanotechnology commercialization is still in its early phases, we need now to get a better sense of what markets will grow and how new nanotechnology products will impact sustainability. This includes balancing gains in efficiency and performance against the net energy, environmental, carbon and other costs associated with the production, use and end-of-life disposal or recycling of nanotechnology products.”

But because nanotechnology underlies many different industries, assessing and forecasting its impact won’t be easy. “Compared to information technology and biotechnology, for example, nanotechnology has more of the characteristics of a general technology such as the development of electric power,” said Youtie [Jan Youtie], director of policy research services at Georgia Tech’s Enterprise Innovation Institute. “That makes it difficult to analyze the value of products and processes that are enabled by the technology. We hope that our paper will provide background information and help frame the discussion about making those assessments.”

From the March 27, 2012 Georgia Institute of Technology news release,

For their paper, co-authors Shapira and Youtie examined a subset of green nanotechnologies that aim to enable sustainable energy, improve environmental quality, and provide healthy drinking water for areas of the world that now lack it. They argue that the lifecycle of nanotechnology products must be included in the assessment.

I was hoping for a bit more detail about how one would go about including nanotechnology-enabled products in this type of economic impact assessment but this is all I could find (from the news release),

In their paper, Youtie and Shapira cite several examples of green nanotechnology, discuss the potential impacts of the technology, and review forecasts that have been made. Examples of green nanotechnology they cite include:

  • Nano-enabled solar cells that use lower-cost organic materials, as opposed to current photovoltaic technologies that require rare materials such as platinum;
  • Nanogenerators that use piezoelectric materials such as zinc oxide nanowires to convert human movement into energy;
  • Energy storage applications in which nanotechnology materials improve existing batteries and nano-enabled fuel cells;
  • Thermal energy applications, such as nano-enabled insulation;
  • Fuel catalysis in which nanoparticles improve the production and refining of fuels and reduce emissions from automobiles;
  • Technologies used to provide safe drinking water through improved water treatment, desalination and reuse.

I checked both Philip Shapira‘s webpage and Jan Youtie‘s at Georgia Tech to find that neither lists this latest work, which hopefully includes additional detail. I’m hopeful there’ll be a document published in the proceedings for this symposium and access will be possible.

On another note, I did mention this symposium in my Jan. 27, 2012 posting where I speculated about the Canadian participation. I did get a response (March 5, 2012)  from Vanessa Clive, Nanotechnology File, Industry Sector, Industry Canada who kindly cleared up my confusion,

A colleague forwarded the extract from your blog below. Thank you for your interest in the OECD Working Party on Nanotechnology (WPN) work, and giving some additional public profile to its work is welcome. However, some correction is needed, please, to keep the record straight.

“It’s a lot to infer from a list of speakers but I’m going to do it anyway. Given that the only Canadian listed as an invited speaker for a prestigious (OECD/AAAS/NNI as hosts) symposium about nanotechnology’s economic impacts, is someone strongly associated with NCC, it would seem to confirm that Canadians do have an important R&D (research and development) lead in an area of international interest.

One thing about this symposium does surprise and that’s the absence of Vanessa Clive from Industry Canada. She co-authored the OECD’s 2010 report, The Impacts of Nanotechnology on Companies: Policy Insights from Case Studies and would seem a natural choice as one of the speakers on the economic impacts that nanotechnology might have in the future.”

I am a member of the organizing committee, on the OECD WPN side, for the Washington Symposium in March which will focus on the need and, in turn, options for development of metrics for evaluation of the economic impacts of nano. As committee member, I was actively involved in identifying potential Canadian speakers for agenda slots. Apart from the co-sponsors whose generosity made the event possible, countries were limited to one or two speakers in order to bring in experts from as many interested countries as possible. The second Canadian expert which we had invited to participate had to pull out, unfortunately.

Also, the OECD project on nano impacts on business was co-designed and co-led by me, another colleague here at the time, and our Swiss colleague, but the report itself was written by OECD staff.

I did send (March 5, 2012)  a followup email with more questions but I gather time was tight as I’ve not heard back.

In any event, I’m looking forward to hearing more about this symposium, however that occurs, in the coming weeks and months.