Tag Archives: Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council

Canada and its review of fundamental science

Leave a reply

Big thanks to David Bruggeman’s June 14, 2016 post (on his Pasco Phronesis blog) for news of Canada’s Fundamental Science Review, which was launched on June 13, 2016 (Note: Links have been removed),

The panel’s mandate focuses on support for fundamental research, research facilities, and platform technologies.  This will include the three granting councils as well as other research organisations such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation. But it does not preclude the panel from considering and providing advice and recommendations on research matters outside of the mandate.  The plan is to make the panel’s work and recommendations readily accessible to the public, either online or through any report or reports the panel produces.  The panel’s recommendations to Minister Duncan are non-binding. …

…

As Ivan Semeniuk notes at The Globe and Mail [Canadian ‘national’ newspaper], the recent Nurse Review in the U.K., which led to the notable changes underway in the organization of that country’s research councils, seems comparable to this effort.  But I think it worth noting the differences in the research systems of the two countries, and the different political pressures in play.  It is not at all obvious to this writer that the Canadian review would necessarily lead to similar recommendations for a streamlining and reorganization of the Canadian research councils.

Longtime observers of the Canadian science funding scene may recall an earlier review held under the auspices of the Steven Harper Conservative government known as the ‘Review of Federal Support to R&D’. In fact it was focused on streamlining government funding for innovation and commercialization of science. The result was the 2011 report, ‘Innovation Canada: A Call to Action’, known popularly as the ‘Jenkins report’ after the panel chair, Tom Jenkins. (More about the report and responses to it can be found in my Oct. 21, 2011 post).

It’s nice to see that fundamental science is being given its turn for attention.

A June 13, 2016 Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada news release provides more detail about the review and the panel guiding the review,

The Government of Canada understands the role of science in maintaining a thriving, clean economy and in providing the evidence for sound policy decisions. To deliver on this role however, federal programs that support Canada’s research efforts must be aligned in such a way as to ensure they are strategic, effective and focused on meeting the needs of scientists first.

That is why the Honourable Kirsty Duncan, Minister of Science, today launched an independent review of federal funding for fundamental science. The review will assess the program machinery that is currently in place to support science and scientists in Canada. The scope of the review includes the three granting councils [Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council {SSHRC}, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council {NSERC}, Canadian Institutes of Health Research {CIHR}] along with certain federally funded organizations such as the Canada Foundation for Innovation [CFI].

The review will be led by an independent panel of distinguished research leaders and innovators including Dr. David Naylor, former president of the University of Toronto and chair of the panel. Other panelists include:

  • Dr. Robert Birgeneau, former chancellor, University of California, Berkeley
  • Dr. Martha Crago, Vice-President, Research, Dalhousie University
  • Mike Lazaridis, co-founder, Quantum Valley Investments
  • Dr. Claudia Malacrida, Associate Vice-President, Research, University of Lethbridge
  • Dr. Art McDonald, former director of the Sudbury Neutrino Laboratory, Nobel Laureate
  • Dr. Martha Piper, interim president, University of British Columbia
  • Dr. Rémi Quirion, Chief Scientist, Quebec
  • Dr. Anne Wilson, Canadian Institute for Advanced Research Successful Societies Fellow and professor of psychology, Wilfrid Laurier University

The panel will spend the next six months seeking input from the research community and Canadians on how to optimize support for fundamental science in Canada. The panel will also survey international best practices for funding science and examine whether emerging researchers face barriers that prevent them from achieving career goals. It will look at what must be done to address these barriers and what more can be done to encourage Canada’s scientists to take on bold new research challenges. In addition to collecting input from the research community, the panel will also invite Canadians to participate in the review [emphasis mine] through an online consultation.

Ivan Semeniuk in his June 13, 2016 article for The Globe and Mail provides some interesting commentary about the possible outcomes of this review,

…

Depending on how its recommendations are taken on board, the panel could trigger anything from minor tweaks to a major rebuild of Ottawa’s science-funding apparatus, which this year is expected to funnel more than $3-billion to Canadian researchers and their labs.

…

Asked what she most wanted the panel to address, Ms. Duncan cited, as an example, the plight of younger researchers who, in many cases, must wait until they are in their 40s to get federal support.

Another is the risk of losing the benefits of previous investments when funding rules become restrictive, such as a 14-year limit on how long the government can support one of its existing networks of centres of excellence, or the dependence of research projects that are in the national interest on funding streams that require support from provincial governments or private sources.

The current system for proposing and reviewing research grants has been criticized as cumbersome and fraught with biases that mean the best science is not always supported.

In a paper published on Friday in the research journal PLOS One, Trent University biologist Dennis Murray and colleagues combed through 13,526 grant proposals to the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council between 2011 and 2014 and found significant evidence that researchers at smaller universities have consistently lower success rates.

Dr. Murray advocates for a more quantitative and impartial system of review to keep such biases at bay.

“There are too many opportunities for human impressions — conscious or unconscious — to make their way into the current evaluation process,” Dr. Murray said.

More broadly, researchers say the time is right for a look at a system that has grown convoluted and less suited to a world in which science is increasingly cross-disciplinary, and international research collaborations are more important.

…

If you have time, I encourage you to take a look at Semeniuk’s entire article as for the paper he mentions, here’s a link to and a citation for it,

Bias in Research Grant Evaluation Has Dire Consequences for Small Universities by Dennis L. Murray, Douglas Morris, Claude Lavoie, Peter R. Leavitt, Hugh MacIsaac,  Michael E. J. Masson, & Marc-Andre Villard. PLOS http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155876  Published: June 3, 2016

This paper is open access.

Getting back to the review and more specifically, the panel, it’s good to see that four of the nine participants are women but other than that there doesn’t seem to be much diversity, i.e.,the majority (five) spring from the Ontario/Québec nexus of power and all the Canadians are from the southern part of country. Back to diversity, there is one business man, Mike Laziridis known primarily as the founder of Research in Motion (RIM or more popularly as the Blackberry company) making the panel not a wholly ivory tower affair. Still, I hope one day these panels will have members from the Canadian North and international members who come from somewhere other than the US, Great Britain, and/or if they’re having a particularly wild day, Germany. Here are some candidate countries for other places to look for panel members: Japan, Israel, China, South Korea, and India. Other possibilities include one of the South American countries, African countries, and/or the Middle Eastern countries.

Take the continent of Africa for example, where many countries seem to have successfully tackled one of the issues as we face. Specifically, the problem of encouraging young researchers. James Wilsdon notes some success in his April 9, 2016 post about Africa and science advice for the Guardian science blogs (Note: Links have been removed),

… some of the brightest talents and most exciting advances in African science were on display at the Next Einstein Forum. This landmark meeting, initiated by the African Institute of Mathematical Sciences, and held in Senegal, brought together almost 1000 researchers, entrepreneurs, businesses and policymakers from across Africa to celebrate and support the continent’s most promising early-career researchers.

A new cadre of fifteen Next Einstein Fellows and fifty-four ambassadors was announced, and the forum ended with an upbeat declaration of commitment to Africa’s role in world-leading, locally-relevant science. …

…

… UNESCO’s latest global audit of science, published at the end of 2015, concludes that African science is firmly on the rise. The number of journal articles published on the continent rose by sixty per cent from 2008 to 2014. Research investment rose from $12.9 billion in 2007 to $19.9 billion (US dollars) in 2013. Over the same period, R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP nudged upwards from 0.36 per cent to 0.45 per cent, and the population of active researchers expanded from 150,000 to 190,000.

If you have the time, do read Wilsdon’s piece which covers some of the more difficult aspects facing the science communities in Africa and more.

In any event, it’s a bit late to bemoan the panel’s makeup but hopefully the government will take note for the future as I’m planning to include some of my critique in my comments to the panel in answer to their request for public comments.

You can find out more about Canada’s Fundamental Science Review here and you can easily participate here and/or go here to subscribe for updates.

2015 Canadian federal budget and science

Leave a reply

Think of this post as a digest of responses to and analyses of the ‘science component’ of the Canadian federal government’s 2015 budget announcement made on April 21, 2015 by Minister of Finance, Joe Oliver. First off the mark, the Canadian Science Policy Centre (CSPC) has featured some opinions about the budget and its impact on Canadian science in an April 27, 2015 posting,

Jim Woodgett
Director, Lunenfeld-Tanenbaum Research Institute of Sinai Health System

Where’s the Science Beef in Canadian Budget 2015?

Andrew Casey
President and CEO, BIOTECanada

Budget 2015: With the fiscal balance restored where to next?

Russ Roberts
Senior Vice President – Tax & Finance, CATA Alliance

Opinion on 2015 Federal Budget

Ron Freeman
CEO of Innovation Atlas Inc. and Research Infosource Inc. formerly co-publisher of RE$EARCH MONEY and co-founder of The Impact Group

Workman-Like Budget Preserves Key National Programs

Paul Davidson
President, Universities Canada

A Reality Check on Budget 2015

Dr. Kamiel Gabriel
Associate Provost of Research and Graduate Programs at the University of Ontario Institute of Technology (UOIT), Science Adviser and Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) of Research at the Ontario Ministry of Research & Innovation

The 2015 Federal Budget Targets Key Segments of Voters

I suggest starting with Woodgett’s piece as he points out something none of the others who chose to comment on the amount of money dedicated to the tricouncil funding agencies (Canadian Institutes of Health Research [CIHR], Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council [NSERC], and Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council [SSHRC]) seemed to have noticed or deemed important,

The primary source of science operating funds are provided by the tricouncils, CIHR/NSERC and SSHRC, which, when indirect costs and other flow through dollars (e.g. CRCs) are included, accounts for about $2.5 billion in annual funding. There are no new dollars added to the tricouncil budgets this year (2015/16) but there is a modest $46 million to be added in 2016/17 – $15 million to CIHR and NSERC, $7.5 million to SSHRC and the rest in indirects. [emphases mine] This new money, though, is largely ear-marked for new initiatives, such as the CIHR Strategy on Patient Oriented Research ($13 million) and an anti-microbial resistant infection program ($2 million). Likewise for NSERC and SSHRC although NSERC enjoys around $16 million relief in not needing to support industrial postgraduate scholarships as this responsibility moves to MITACS with no funding loss at NSERC. Alex Usher of Higher Education Strategy Associates, estimates that, taking inflation into account, tricouncil funding will be down 9% since 2008. [emphasis mine] It is hardly surprising that funding applications to these agencies are under enormous competitive pressure. At CIHR, the last open operating grant competition yielded unprecedented low success rates of ~14% along with across-the-board budget cuts of grants that were funded of 26%. This agency is in year 1 of major program reforms and has very little wiggle-room with its frozen budget.

To be fair, there are sources other than the tricouncil for science funding although their mandate is for ‘basic’ science, more or less. Over the last few years, there’s been a greater emphasis on tricouncil funding that produces economic results and this is in line international trends.

Getting back to the CSPC’s opinions, Davidson’s piece, notes some of that additional funding,

With $1.33 billion earmarked for the Canada Foundation for Innovation [CFI], Budget 2015 marks the largest single announcement of Canadian research infrastructure funding. This is something the community prioritized, given the need for state-of-the-art equipment, labs, digital tools and high-speed technology to conduct, partner and share research results. This renewed commitment to CFI builds on the globally competitive research infrastructure that Canadians have built over the last 15 years and enables our researchers to collaborate with the very best in the world. Its benefits will be seen in universities across the country and across disciplines. Key research infrastructure investments – from digital to major science infrastructure – support the broad spectrum of university research, from theoretical and discovery to pre-competitive and applied.

The $45 million announced for TRIUMF will support the laboratory’s role in accelerating science in Canada, an important investment in discovery research.

While the news about the CFI seems to have delighted a number of observers, it should be noted (as per Woodgett’s piece) that the $1.3B is to be paid out over six years ($220M per year, more or less) and the money won’t be disbursed until the 2017/18 fiscal year. As for the $45M designated for TRIUMF (Canada’s National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics), this is exciting news for the lab which seems to have bypassed the usual channels, as it has before, to receive its funding directly from the federal government.

Another agency which seems to have received its funding directly from the federal government is the Council of Canadian Academies (CCA), From an April 22, 2015 news release,

The Council of Canadian Academies welcomes the federal government’s announcement of new funding for in-depth, authoritative, evidence-based assessments. Economic Action Plan 2015 allocated $15 million over five years [$3M per year] for the Council of Canadian Academies.

“This is welcome news for the Council and we would like to thank the Government for this commitment. Over the past 10 years the Council has worked diligently to produce high quality reports that support policy and decision-making in numerous areas,” said Janet Bax, Interim President. “We appreciate the support from Minister Holder and his predecessors, Minsters Goodyear and Rickford, for ensuring meaningful questions have been referred to the Council for assessment.” [For anyone unfamiliar with the Canadian science minister scene, Ed Holder, current Minister of State for Science and Technology, and previous Conservative government ministers, Greg Rickford and Gary Goodyear]

As of March 31st, 2015 the Council has published 31 reports on topics as diverse as business innovation, the future of Canadian policing models, and improving medicines for children. The Council has worked with over 800 expert volunteers from across Canada and abroad. These individuals have given generously of their time and as a result more than $16 million has been leveraged in volunteer support. The Council’s work has been used in many ways and had an impact on national policy agendas and strategies, research programs, and supported stakeholders and industry groups with forward looking action plans.

“On behalf of the Board of Governors I would like to extend our thanks to the Government,” said Margaret Bloodworth, Chair of the Board of Governors.  “The Board is now well positioned to consider future strategic directions for the organization and how best to further expand on the Council’s client base.”

The CCA news is one of the few item about social science funding, most observers such as Ivan Semeniuk in an April 27, 2015 article for the Globe and Mail, are largely focused on the other sciences,

Last year [2014], that funding [for the tricouncil agencies] amounted to about$2.7-billion, and this year’s budget maintains that. Because of inflation and increasing competition, that is actually a tightening of resources for rank-and-file scientists at Canada’s universities and hospitals. At the same time, those institutions are vying for a share of a $1.5-billion pot of money called the Canada First Research Excellence Fund, which the government unveiled last year and is aimed at helping push selected projects to a globally competitive level.

“This is all about creating an environment where our research community can grow,” Ed Holder, Minister of State for Science and Technology, told The Globe and Mail.

One extra bonus for science in this year’s budget is a $243.5-million commitment to secure Canada’s partnership in the Thirty Meter Telescope, a huge international observatory that is slated for construction on a Hawaiian mountain top. Given its high price-tag, many thought it unlikely that the Harper government would go for the project. In the end, the telescope likely benefited from the fact that had the Canada committed less money, most of the economic returns associated with building it would flow elsewhere.

…

The budget also reflects the Harper government’s preference for tying funding to partnerships with industry. A promised increase of $46-million for the granting councils next year will be largely for spurring collaborations between academic researchers and industrial partners rather than for basic research.

Whether or not science becomes an issue in the upcoming election campaign, some research advocates say the budget shows that the government’s approach to science is still too narrow. While it renews necessary commitments to research infrastructure, they fear not enough money will be left for people doing the kind of work that expands knowledge but does not always produce an immediate economic return.

…

An independent analysis of the 2015 budget prepared by Higher Education Strategy Associates, a Toronto based consulting firm, shows that when inflation is factored in, the money available for researchers through the granting councils has been in decline since 2009.

Canadian scientists are the not only ones feeling a pinch. Neal V. Patel’s April 27, 2015 article (originally published on Wired) on the Slate website discusses US government funding in an attempt to contextualize science research crowdfunding (Note: A link has been removed),

In the U.S., most scientific funding comes from the government, distributed in grants awarded by an assortment of federal science, health, and defense agencies. So it’s a bit disconcerting that some scientists find it necessary to fund their research the same way dudebros raise money for a potato salad. Does that migration suggest the current grant system is broken? If it is, how can we ensure that funding goes to legitimate science working toward meaningful discoveries?

On its own, the fact that scientists are seeking new sources of funding isn’t so weird. In the view of David Kaiser, a science historian at MIT, crowdfunding is simply the latest “pendulum swing” in how scientists and research institutions fund their work. Once upon a time, research at MIT and other universities was funded primarily by student tuition and private philanthropists. In 1919, however, with philanthropic investment drying up, MIT launched an ambitious plan that allowed local companies to sponsor specific labs and projects.

Critics complained the university had allowed corporate interests to dig their claws into scientific endeavors and befoul intellectual autonomy. (Sound familiar?) But once WWII began, the U.S. government became a force for funding, giving huge wartime grants to research groups nationwide. Federal patronage continued expanding in the decades after the war.

Seventy years later, that trend has reversed: As the federal budget shrinks, government investment in scientific research has reached new lows. The conventional models for federal grants, explains University of Iowa immunologist Gail Bishop, “were designed to work such that 25 to 30 percent of studies were funded. Now it’s around 10 percent.”

I’m not sure how to interpret the Canadian situation in light of other jurisdictions. It seems clear that within the Canadian context for government science funding that research funding is on a downward trend and has been going down for a few years (my June 2, 2014 posting). That said, we have another problem and that’s industrial research and development funding (my Oct. 30, 2013 posting about the 2013 OECD scorecard for science and technology; Note: the scorecard is biannual and should be issued again in 2015). Businesses don’t pay for research in Canada and it appears the Conservative and previous governments have not been successful in reversing that situation even marginally.

Medical isotope team at TRIUMF (Canada’s national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics) wins award

Leave a reply

I’ve written a few times about the development of a new means for producing medical isotopes that does not require nuclear materials. (my June 10, 2014 posting and my June 9, 2013 posting,) The breakthrough was made at TRIUMF, Canada’s national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics, which is located in Vancouver, and the team which made the breakthrough is being honoured. From a Feb. 17, 2015 TRIUMF news release,

For their outstanding teamwork in realizing a solution for safe and reliable isotope production for hospitals in Canada,interdisciplinary research team CycloMed99 will be receiving a prestigious national award at a ceremony in Ottawa today [Feb. 17, 2015]. The Honourable David Johnston, Governor General of Canada, will present the NSERC  [Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada] Brockhouse Canada Prize for Interdisciplinary Research in Science and Engineering to the team in recognition of their seamless teamwork and successes.

…

Drawing from expertise in physics, chemistry, and nuclear medicine, the team set out five years ago to develop a reliable, alternative means of production for a key medical isotope in order to eliminate the threat of a supply shortage – a catastrophic healthcare crisis for patients around the world. Technetium-99m (Tc-99m) is the world standard for medical imaging to diagnose cancer and heart disease. Every day, 5,000 medical procedures in
Canada and 70,000 daily worldwide depend on this isotope. With funding support from NSERC, CIHR and Natural Resources Canada, the team developed technology that uses medical cyclotrons already installed and operational in major hospitals across Canada to produce enough Tc-99m on a daily basis.

…

This innovation is safer and more environmentally friendly than current technology because it eliminates the need for highly enriched uranium, also avoiding the generation
of highly radioactive waste. Canada’s healthcare system would save money by producing isotopes locally under a full-cost recovery model.

The project resulted in over a dozen scientific publications, several provisional patents and a training opportunity for more than 175 individuals.

Now, the research team is focused on working with the world’s major cyclotron manufacturers to add factory-supported Tc-99m production capability to their existing product lines so the technology will become standard in future machines.

CycloMed99 is also working with a Canadian start-up company to license, transfer and sell this technology around the world. This will allow hospitals and companies with cyclotrons to retrofit their existing infrastructure with a Made in Canada solution to produce this valuable material.

Congratulations to the CycloMed99 team, recipients of the Brockhouse Canada Prize:

• Dr. Paul Schaffer, a chemist by training and Division Head, Nuclear Medicine at TRIUMF; Adjunct Professor, Dept. of Chemistry at Simon Fraser University; and Professor, Dept. of Radiology at the University of British Columbia (UBC);

• Dr. François Bénard, a clinician by training and BC Leadership Chair in Functional Cancer Imaging at the BC Cancer Agency; and Professor, Dept. of Radiology at UBC;

• Dr. Anna Celler, a medical physicist by training and Professor, Dept. of Radiology at UBC;

• Dr. Michael Kovacs, a chemist by training; PET Radiochemistry Facility Imaging Scientist at Lawson Health Research Institute; Associate Professor at Western University;

• Dr. Thomas J. Ruth, a nuclear chemist by training and researcher emeritus at TRIUMF; and Professor emeritus at UBC, and;

• Dr. John Valliant, a chemist by training and Scientific Director and CEO of the Centre for Probe Development and Commercialization; and Professor at McMaster University.

There’s more information about TRIUMF and the business aspect of this breakthrough in a Jan. 16, 2015 article by Tyler Orton for Business in Vancouver.

CREATE ISOSIM (isotopes for science and medicine) and NanoMat (nanomaterials) program at the University of British Columbia (Canada)

Leave a reply

It seems the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC; one of Canada’s ‘big three’ science national funding agencies) has a new funding program, CREATE (Collaborative Research and Training Experience) and two local (Vancouver, Canada) institutions, the University of British Columbia (UBC) and TRIUMF (Canada’s National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics) are beneficiaries to the tune of $3.3M.

Before getting the happy news, here’s a little information about this new NSERC program (from the CREATE page),

The Collaborative Research and Training Experience (CREATE) Program supports the training of teams of highly qualified students and postdoctoral fellows from Canada and abroad through the development of innovative training programs that:

  • encourage collaborative and integrative approaches, and address significant scientific challenges associated with Canada’s research priorities; and
  • facilitate the transition of new researchers from trainees to productive employees in the Canadian workforce.

These innovative programs must include the acquisition and development of important professional skills among students and postdoctoral fellows that complement their qualifications and technical skills.

In addition, these programs should encourage the following as appropriate:

  • student mobility, nationally or internationally, between individual universities and between universities and other sectors;
  • interdisciplinary research within the natural sciences and engineering (NSE), or at the interface between the NSE and health, or the social sciences and humanities. However, the main focus of the training must still lie within the NSE;
  • increased collaboration between industry and academia; and
  • for the industrial stream, an additional objective is to support improved job-readiness within the industrial sector by exposing participants to the specific challenges of this sector and training people with the skills identified by industry.

I wonder what they mean by “professional skills?” They use the phrase again in the Description,

The CREATE Program is designed to improve the mentoring and training environment for the Canadian researchers of tomorrow by improving areas such as professional skills, communication and collaboration, as well as providing experience relevant to both academic and non-academic research environments.

This program is intended for graduate students and has two streams, Industrial and International Collaboration. At this point, they have two international collaboration partners, one each in Germany and in Brazil.

There’s a subsection on the CREATE page titled Merit of the proposed training program (in my world that’s ‘criteria for assessment’),

Applicable to all applications:

  • the extent to which the program is associated with a research area of high priority to Canada and will provide a higher quality of training;
  • how the research area proposed relates to the current scientific or technical developments in the field, with references to the current literature;
  • the extent to which the research training program will facilitate the transition of the trainees to the Canadian workforce and will promote interaction of the trainees with non-academic sectors, such as private companies, industry associations, not-for-profit organizations, government departments, etc., as appropriate;
  • the description of the potential employers and a qualitative assessment of the job prospects for trainees;
  • the extent to which the program will provide opportunities for the trainees to develop professional skills;
  • the extent to which the program uses novel and interesting approaches to graduate student training in an integrated manner to provide an enriched experience for all participants;
  • the research training program’s focus and clarity of objectives, both short- and long-term; and
  • the added value that trainees will receive through their participation.

Clearly, this program is about training tomorrow’s workers and I expect CREATE is welcome in many corners. We (in Canada and elsewhere internationally) have a plethora of PhDs and nowhere for them to go. I have, of course, two provisos. First, I hope this program is not a precursor to a wholesale change in funding to a indulge a form of short-term thinking. Not every single course of study has to lead to a clearly defined job as defined by industry. Sometimes, industry doesn’t know what it needs until there’s a shortage. Second, I hope the administrators for this program support it. You (the government) can formulate all sorts of great policies but it’s the civil service that will implement your policies and if they don’t support them, you (the government) are likely to experience failure.

Here’s the CREATE funding announcement in a May 19, 2014 news item on Azonano,

Researchers studying nanomaterials and isotopes at the University of British Columbia received a $3.3 million boost in funding from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Two UBC teams, led respectively by Chemistry Prof. Mark MacLachlan and Physics Prof. Reiner Kruecken, received $1.65 million each from NSERC’s Collaborative Research and Training Experience (CREATE) grants. The funding extends over a six-year period. The investment will help MacLachlan and Kruecken mentor and train graduate students and postdoctoral fellows.

A May 16, 2014 UBC news release, which originated the news item, provides more information including some background for the two project leaders,

Mark MacLachlan, Professor, UBC Department of Chemistry
NanoMAT: NSERC CREATE Training Program in Nanomaterials Science & Technology

Nanomaterials have dimensions about 1/1000th the width of a human hair. Though invisible to our eyes, these materials are already used for diagnosing and treating diseases, environmental remediation, developing solar cells and batteries, as well as other applications. Nanomaterials form a multi-billion dollar industry that is expanding rapidly. To address the growing need for highly qualified trainees in Canada, UBC researchers have spearheaded the NanoMat program. Through a unique interdisciplinary training program, science and engineering students will undertake innovative research projects, receive hands-on training, and undertake internships at companies in Canada and across the world.

Reiner Kruecken, Professor, UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy
ISOSIM, ISOtopes for Science and Medicine

The ISOSIM program is designed to provide students with enriched training experiences in the production and preparation of nuclear isotopes for innovative applications that range from medical research and environmental science to investigations of the foundations of the universe. This will prepare students for positions in a number of Canadian industrial sectors including medical diagnostics and treatment, pharmaceutical sciences, development of next-generation electronic devices, environmental sciences, and isotope production. This project builds on the existing cooperation between UBC and TRIUMF, Canada’s national laboratory for particle and nuclear phsyics, [sic] on isotopes science.

Not mentioned in the UBC news release is that ISOSIM is a program that is jointly run with TRIUMF, Canada’s National Laboratory for Particle and Nuclear Physics. Here’s how TRIUMF views their CREATE grant, from a May 16, 2014 TRIUMF news release,

The ISOSIM program will train undergraduate students, graduate students, and postdoctoral researchers at UBC and TRIUMF from fields associated with isotope sciences in an individually tailored, interdisciplinary curriculum that will build on and complement the education in their specialty field. Unique in Canada, this program offers a combination of interdisciplinary isotope-related training ranging from pure to applied sciences, industrial internships, and mobility with German research institutions with unique large-scale equipment and scientific infrastructures.

It seems this particular grant was awarded as part of the international collaboration stream. (I wonder if TRIUMF or TRIUMF-friendly individuals had a role in developing that particular aspect of the CREATE program. Following on that thought, is there a large Canadian science organization with ties to Brazil?)

Getting back to TRIUMF’s current CREATE grant, the news release emphasizes an industrial focus,

“ISOSIM represents a timely and nationally important training initiative and is built on a world-class collaborative research environment,” says Dr. Reiner Kruecken, TRIUMF’s Science Division Head and Professor at UBC Department of Physics and Astronomy. Kruecken is leading the ISOSIM initiative and is joined by over twenty collaborators from UBC, TRIUMF, and several research institutes in Germany.

ISOSIM is poised to create the next generation of leaders for isotope-related industries and markets, including commercial, public health, environmental, and governmental sectors, as well as academia. The combination of research institutions like UBC, TRIUMF, and the BC Cancer Agency with Canadian companies like Nordion Inc., and Advanced Cyclotron Solutions Inc., have transformed Vancouver into a hub for isotope-related research and industries, emerging as “Isotope Valley”.

The inspiration for the ISOSIM program came from an interdisciplinary TRIUMF-led team who, in response to the isotope crisis, demonstrated non-reactor methods for producing the critical medical isotope Tc-99m. This required a coordinated approach of physicists, chemists, biologists, and engineers.

Similar interdisciplinary efforts are needed for expanding the use and application of isotopes in key areas. While their medical use is widely known, isotopes enjoy growing importance in many fields. Isotopes are used as tracers to examine the trace flow of nutrients and pollutants in the environment. Isotopes are also used to characterize newly designed materials and the behaviour of nanostructured materials that play a key role in modern electronics devices. The production and investigation of very short-lived radioactive isotopes, also known as rare-isotopes, is a central approach in nuclear physics research to understand the nuclear force and how the chemical elements heavier than iron were formed in stars and stellar explosions.

I really wish they (marketing/communications and/or business people) would stop trying to reference ‘silicon valley’ as per this news release’s ‘isotope valley’. Why not ‘isotope galaxy’? It fits better with the isotope and star theme.

Getting back to the “professional skills” mentioned in the CREATE grant description, I don’t see any mention of etiquette, good manners, listening skills, or the quality of humility, all of which are handy in the workplace and having had my share of experience dealing with fresh out-of-graduate-school employees, I’d say they’re sorely needed.

Regardless, I wish both MacLachlan and Krueken the best as they and their students pioneer what I believe is a new NSERC program.

Simon Fraser University scientists peer deeply into fuel cells while University of Toronto experts debate nanotechnoloy: revolution or evolution?

Leave a reply

An Oct. 25, 2013 Simon Fraser University (SFU; Vancouver, Canada) news release touts a new centre and a very snazzy piece of equipment (Nano X-ray Computed Tomography [NXCT]) that scientists will be able to build and purchase courtesy of a new grant (Note: Links have been removed),

Powerful scanners that give scientists a direct line of sight into hydrogen fuel cells are the latest tools Simon Fraser University researchers will use to help Ballard Power Systems Inc create more durable, lower-cost fuel cells. Use of these fuel cells in vehicles can substantially reduce harmful emissions in the transportation sector.

The new Nano X-ray Computed Tomography (NXCT) tools will become part of a nationally unique fuel cell testing and characterization facility. The new four-year, $6.5 million project is receiving $3.39 million in funding from Automotive Partnership Canada (APC).

It’s one of 10 university-industry partnerships receiving a total of more than $52 million ($30 million from APC, leveraged by more than $22 million from industry and other partners) announced today by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC).

Research carried out in the new visualization facility, expected to be operational by spring, will further the ongoing research collaboration between Ballard and SFU.

“This will be an unprecedented, world-class testing facility dedicated entirely to this project over the next four years,” says principal investigator Erik Kjeang, an internationally known fuel cell expert and director of SFU’s Fuel Cell Research Laboratory (FCRel). “Beyond its capabilities, that’s a strength in itself.”

Says Ballard’s Research Manager Shanna Knights: “It’s a unique opportunity, to have dedicated access to highly specialized equipment and access to university experts who are focused on Ballard’s needs.”

Researchers will use the facility to develop and advance the technology required for the company’s next generation of fuel cell products, helping to meet its targets related to extending fuel cell life while improving efficiency.

Kjeang, an assistant professor in SFU’s School of Mechatronic Systems Engineering, says the new, sophisticated nano-scale scanning capabilities will enable researchers to see inside the fuel cell micro-structure and track how its components degrade over time. The research will play an important role in the university’s focus on advancing clean energy initiatives.

“Partnerships with leading companies such as Ballard solidify SFU’s reputation as a world-class innovator in fuel cell research,” says Nimal Rajapakse, dean and professor, Faculty of Applied Sciences. “This unique fuel cell testing facility will be used for cutting edge research and training of HQP (highly qualified personnel) that will help to strengthen the competitiveness of the Canadian automotive and clean energy industry. We are grateful that Automotive Partnership Canada has provided this second round of funding to support the SFU-Ballard research collaboration.”

Adds Kjeang: “Thanks to the APC program, and the support NSERC has provided over the years, I have been able to both explore the fundamentals of fuel cell technology and to successfully work with companies who are making globally leading advances in green automotive technology.”

A former research engineer who began his career at Ballard in 2008, Kjeang came to SFU to continue his own research interests while keeping a foot in industry. He also continues to lead a complementary project with Ballard that involves nearly 40 students and researchers working to improve the durability of heavy-duty bus fuel cells.

You can find the news release with all its links intact here.  I am a little surprised that there isn’t any mention of SFU’s 4D Labs (their nanotechnology showcase project), especially since one of the areas of interest is this (from the 4D Labs Research Areas webpage),

Cleaner Energy
New materials innvovation is critical to lower the costs and improve the performance of promising technologies such as photovoltaics, fuel cells and passive energy control sytems. [emphasis mine]

Meanwhile, experts gathered at the University of Toronto debated nanotechnology by asking this question: revolution or evolution? as  part of a celebratory event extending from Oct. 23 to Oct. 24, 2013. From a University of Toronto Oct. 23, 2013 news release (H/T Hispanic Business.com),

A panel of nanotechnology experts, moderated by U of T Materials Science & Engineering Professor Doug Perovic will explore the possibilities of the technology as part of a celebration marking the University of Toronto’s  Department of Materials Science & Engineering’s 100-year anniversary.

Nanotechnology is the science of manipulating atoms and molecules on a scale so small they can’t be seen with an ordinary microscope. It’s about coaxing them into displaying unusual properties, such as a material 10 times as strong as steel, but a fraction of its weight, or solar panels that produce fuel rather than electricity.

While nanotech has the potential to transform society in ways no one ever thought of before, it’s also been the subject of much hype.

“Some would say it has not met expectations,” says Professor Perovic, Canada’s ‘nabob of nanotechnology.’ “While it hasn’t taken off in the areas people predicted it would take off, it has become huge in unpredictable areas.”

Some of the world’s top nanotechnology experts will be part of the panel and give the big picture.

WHAT: Nanotechnology panel featuring several experts

WHERE: Room#: BA 1130, Bahen Centre for Information Technology, University of Toronto, 40 St. George Street (Google map: http://goo.gl/maps/tXBxP)

WHEN: 10am, Thursday (October 24)

WHO:
Michael F. Ashby
Royal Society Research Professor
Department of Engineering
University of Cambridge

Shawn Qu | MMS PhD 9T5
Chairman, President & CEO
Canadian Solar Inc.

Polina Snugovsky
Chief Metallurgist, Celestica Inc.
Robert B. Storey | MMS 7T7
Managing Partner, Bereskin & Parr LLP

Gino Palumbo
MMS 8T3, MASc 8T5, PhD 8T9
President & CEO, Integran Technologies Inc

Donald R. Sadoway
EngSci 7T2, MMS MASc 7T3, PhD 7T7
John F. Elliot Professor of Materials Chemistry
Department of Materials Science & Engineering, MIT

David S. Wilkinson
EngSci 7T2, MMS MASc 7T4
Vice-President & Provost, Academic
McMaster University

I wonder if the experts came to any conclusions.

Waterloo Institute of Nanotechnology/EcoSynthetix industrial partnership and an interlaced relationship

Leave a reply

The EcoSynthetix and Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology partnership announced today (Mar. 13, 2013) is an example of how tightly interlaced the relationships between academic institutions and their graduates’ start-up companies can be. A Mar. 13, 2013 news item on Nanowerk describes the partnership,

EcoSynthetix Inc. and the Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology at the University of Waterloo have joined forces through an industrial partnership to collaborate on new applications for EcoSynthetix’ EcoSphere® technology. The five-year agreement will be jointly funded through an EcoSynthetix and NSERC (National Sciences and Engineering Research Council) Collaborative Research and Development Grant. The project matches the scientific expertise from the University of Waterloo in macromolecular science with the sustainability benefits of EcoSphere® bio-based nanoparticles which are based on green chemistry. The goal of the project is to broaden the scientific knowledge base of the EcoSphere® technology to support its introduction into new application areas.

The Mar. 13, 2013 EcoSynthetix news release, which originated the news item, mentions the relationship in passing while extolling the virtues of the partnership,

“As a global centre of excellence for nanotechnology research, this project represents a great opportunity for our institute, faculty and students at the University, to collaborate with a local innovator to further our understanding of the technology and its potential applications,” said Dr. Arthur J. Carty, Executive Director of the Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology (“WIN”) and an independent director of the board of EcoSynthetix. [emphasis mine] “Nanotechnology is a leading-edge, enabling technology that holds the promise of a lasting economic benefit for jobs and investment in the materials, energy and healthcare sectors. EcoSynthetix’s innovative nanotechnology has the potential to impact a wide-array of markets that would benefit from a sustainable alternative to petroleum-based products.”

“This ECO-WIN collaboration involves four professors and eight graduate students at the Waterloo Institute for Nanotechnology and is a great example of how industry and universities can work together to advance an exciting new area of science to benefit the community,” said Dr. Steven Bloembergen, Executive Vice President, Technology of EcoSynthetix. “Our EcoSphere® technology is already commercial and providing sustainable benefits in three separate markets today. Our team’s primary focus at this stage is near-term product development and product enhancements of carbohydrate-based biopolymers. By working with the Institute of Nanotechnology to deepen our understanding of the basic science, we can identify new future applications that could benefit from our sustainable biobased materials.”

The EcoSphere® technology is being commercially utilized as biobased latex products providing alternatives to petroleum-based binders in the coated paper and paperboard market. [emphasis mine] The goal of this project is to generate a greater understanding of the properties of EcoSphere® biolatex® binders by establishing a knowledge base that could enable tailor-made novel particles with the desired properties for a given application. The project team will be chemically modifying the nanoparticles and then characterizing how the properties of the novel particles are affected by these changes.

I don’t understand what “independent director” means in this context. Is the term meant to suggest that it’s a coincidence Carty is WIN’s executive director and a member of the EcoSynthetix board? Or, does it mean that he’s not employed by the company? If any readers care to clarify the matter, please do leave a comment. In any event, the EcoSynthetix timeline suggests the company has a close relationship with the University of Waterloo as it was founded in 1996 by graduates  (from the company’s About Us History Timeline webpage),

EcosynthetixTimeline

As for the product line which birthed this partnership, there’s a disappointing lack of technical detail about Ecosphere biolatex binders. Here’s the best I can find on the company website (from the Ecosphere Biolatex Binders Performance page),

The smaller particle size characteristic of biolatex binders results in increased binder strength and performance. In coated paper, it provides improved aesthetics; a rich, bright finish; enhanced open structure and excellent printability across all grades.

I wonder if some of this new work will be focused on ways to use CNC (cellulose nanocrytals or NCC, nanocrystalline cellulose) in addition to the company’s previously developed “bio-based nanoparticles”  to enhance the product which, as I highlighted earlier, sells to the “coated paper and paperboard market.” From the CelluForce (the CNC/NCC production plant in Quebec) Applications page,

NCC’s properties and many potential forms enable many uses, including:

  • Biocomposites for bone replacement and tooth repair
  • Pharmaceuticals and drug delivery
  • Additives for foods and cosmetics
  • Improved paper and building products
  • Advanced or “intelligent” packaging
  • High-strength spun fibres and textiles
  • Additives for coatings, paints, lacquers and adhesives
  • Reinforced polymers and innovative bioplastics
  • Advanced reinforced composite materials
  • Recyclable interior and structural components for the transportation industry
  • Aerospace and transportation structures
  • Iridescent and protective films
  • Films for optical switching
  • Pigments and inks
  • Electronic paper printers
  • Innovative coatings and new fillers for papermaking

Since I’m already speculating, I will note I’ve had a couple of requests for information on how to access NCC/CNC from entrepreneurs who’ve not been successful at obtaining the material from the few existing production plants such as CelluForce and the one in the US. It seems only academics can get access.

One last comment about this ‘partnership’, I’d dearly love to know what relationships, if any exist, between the proponents and the NSERC committee which approved the funding.

Interestingly, Carty is the chair for the recently convened expert panel for the Council of Canadian Academies’ The State of Canada’s Science Culture assessment, as per my Dec. 19, 2012 post about the announcement of his appointment. This latest development casts a new light on the panel (my Feb. 22, 2013 post notes my reaction to the expert panel’s membership) and the meaning of science culture in Canada.

Informing research choices—the latest report from the Canadian Council of Academies (part 2: more details and my comments)

Leave a reply

In general, I found this to be a thoughtful report, Canadian Council of Academies (CCA) Informing Research Choices: Indicators and Judgment, and have at the most a few criticisms. Starting with this bit about the Discovery Grants Programme (DGP), funded by Canada’s Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and ‘expert judgment’,

The focus of NSERC on science assessment practices is directed partly by a long-standing concern that the allocation of DGP funding across fields is overly dependent on historical funding patterns, and that future allocations should incorporate other factors such as research quality, changes in the scientific landscape, and the emergence of research fields.

This review of international science assessment reveals a diverse landscape of assessment methods and practices. Two of the lessons emerging from the review are especially relevant to the Panel’s charge. First, the national research context is significant in defining a given science assessment, and no single set of indicators for assessment will be ideal in all circumstances, though evidence gathered from examining experiences of other countries may help inform the development of a science assessment strategy for Canada. Second, there is a global trend towards national science assessment models that incorporate both quantitative indicators and expert judgment. [emphases mine] (p. 31 print version, p. 51 PDF)

Ok, how do we define ‘expert’? Especially in light of the fact that  the report discusses ‘peer’ and ‘expert’ review (p. 50 print version, p. 70 PDF). Here’s a definition (or non definition) of ‘expert review’ from the report,

Following the definition provided by the OECD (2008), the Panel uses the term “expert review” to refer to deliberative evaluation processes based on expert judgment used in the context of evaluations of broader research fields or units. (p. 51 print version, p. 71 PDF)

Tautology, anyone?

The report also describes more quantitative measures such as bibliometrics (how many times and where were your scientists published), amongst others.  From the report,

The simplest bibliometric indicators are those based on publication counts. In principle, such counts can be generated for many different types of publications (e.g., books, book chapters). In practice, due to the limitations of coverage in indexed bibliographic databases, existing indicators are most often based on counts of peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals. Basic publication indicators typically take the form of absolute counts of the number of journal articles for a particular unit (e.g., individual, research group, institution, or field) by year or for a period of years. Such indicators are typically framed as a measure of research output.

Additional indicators based on publication counts can be derived from shares of publication counts (e.g., a research group’s share of total publications in an institution, a field’s share of total publications in a country). These share-based indicators generally are used to capture information about the relative importance of research output originating from a particular unit or field. More advanced indicators based on weighted publication counts can also be created when publication output is typically weighted by some measure of the quality of the research outlet. For example, journal impact factors (a measure of the relative citedness of a journal) may be used to give a higher weight to publications in more prestigious or competitive journals. [emphasis mine] Unlike straight publication counts, these metrics also depend on some other measure of quality, either based on citation or on some other assessment of the relative quality of different journals. (pp. 55-56 print version, pp. 75-76 PDF)

There are more bibliometrics discussed along with some of their shortcomings but, interestingly, no mention of open access publishing and its possible impacts on  ‘prestigious journals’ and on the bibliometrics themselves.

Getting back to my question in part 1 ” I was looking for evidence that the panel would have specific recommendations for avoiding an over-reliance on metrics (which I see taking place and accelerating in many areas not just for science funding).”Interestingly the report makes references to qualitative approaches without ever defining it although the the term ‘quantitative indicators’ is described in the glossary,

Quantitative indicators: any indicators constructed from quantitative data (e.g., counts of publications, citations, students, grants, research funding).

The qualitative approaches mentioned  in the report include ‘expert’ review, peer review, and case studies. Since I don’t understand what they mean by ‘expert’, I’m not sure I understand ‘peer’. As for the case studies, here’s how this approach is described (Note: I have removed a footnote),

The case study is perhaps the most common example of other types of qualitative methods used in research assessment. Case studies are often used to explore the wider socio-economic impacts of research. For example, the U.K. Research Excellence Framework (REF) …

Project Retrosight is a Canadian example of the case study approach used in research assessment. Undertaken as part of a multinational study to evaluate the impact of basic biomedical and clinical cardiovascular and stroke research projects, Project Retrosight measured payback of projects using a sampling framework. [emphasis mine]  Despite several limitations to the analysis (e.g., the number of case studies limiting the sample pool from which to draw observations, potential inconsistencies in reporting and comparability), the case study approach provided an effective platform for evaluating both the how and the why of evidence to demonstrate impact. The key findings of the study revealed a broad and diverse range of impacts, with the majority of broader impacts, socio-economic and other, coming from a minority of projects (Wooding et al., 2011).  (p. 53 print version, p. 73 PDF)

My understanding of the word ‘payback’ is that it’s related to the term ‘return on investment’ and that measure requires  quantitative data. If so, how was the Project Retrosight qualitative? The description in the report doesn’t offer that information.

The conclusion from the final paragraph of the report doesn’t offer any answers,

… quantitative indicators are far from obviating the need for human expertise and judgment in the research funding allocation decision process. Indicators should be used to inform rather than replace expert judgment. Given the inherent uncertainty and complexity of science funding decisions, these choices are best left in the hands of well-informed experts with a deep and nuanced understanding of the research funding contexts in question, and the scientific issues, problems, questions, and opportunities at stake. (p. 104 print version, p. 124 PDF)

I very much appreciate the approach the ‘expert’ panel took and the thoughtful nature of the report  but I feel it falls short. The panel offers an exhortation but no recommendations for ensuring that science funding decisions don’t become entirely reliant on metrics; they never do describe what they mean by ‘expert’ or explain the difference between qualitative and quantitative;’ and there’s no mention of ‘trends/disruptive developments’ such as open access publishing, which could have a powerful impact on the materials ‘experts’ use when making their research allocation decisions.

The full report, executive summary, abridged report, appendices,  news release and media backgrounder are available here.

ETA July 9, 2012 12:40 PST: There’s an interview (audio or text depending on your preferences) with Rita Colwell the report’s expert panel at the Canadian Science Policy Centre website here.

Informing research choices—the latest report from the Canadian Council of Academies (part 1: report conclusions and context)

Leave a reply

The July 5, 2012 news release from the Canadian Council of Academies (CCA) notes this about the Informing Research Choices: Indicators and Judgment report,

An international expert panel has assessed that decisions regarding science funding and performance can’t be determined by metrics alone. A combination of performance indicators and expert judgment are the best formula for determining how to allocate science funding.

The Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) spends approximately one billion dollars a year on scientific research. Over one-third of that goes directly to support discovery research through its flagship Discovery Grants Program (DGP). However, concerns exist that funding decisions are made based on historical funding patterns and that this is not the best way to determine future funding decisions.

As NSERC strives to be at the leading edge for research funding practices, it asked the Council of Canadian Academies to assemble an expert panel that would look at global practices that inform funding allocation, as well as to assemble a library of indicators that can be used when assessing funding decisions. The Council’s expert panel conducted an in-depth assessment and came to a number of evidence-based conclusions.

The panel Chair, Dr. Rita Colwell commented, “the most significant finding of this panel is that quantitative indicators are best interpreted by experts with a deep and nuanced understanding of the research funding contexts in question, and the scientific issues, problems, questions and opportunities at stake.” She also added, “Discovery research in the natural sciences and engineering is a key driver in the creation of many public goods, contributing to economic strength, social stability, and national security. It is therefore important that countries such as Canada have a complete understanding of how best to determine allocations of its science funding.”

… Other panel findings discussed within the report include: a determination that many science indicators and assessment approaches are sufficiently robust; international best practices offer limited insight into science indicator use and assessment strategies; and mapping research funding allocation directly to quantitative indicators is far too simplistic, and is not a realistic strategy for Canada. The Panel also outlines four key principles for the use of indicators that can guide research funders and decision-makers when considering future funding decisions.

The full report, executive summary, abridged report, appendices,  news release, and media backgrounder are available here.

I have taken a look at the full report and, since national funding schemes for the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (and other science funding agencies of this ilk) are not not my area of expertise, the best I can offer is an overview from interested member of the public.

The report provides a very nice introduction to the issues the expert panel was addressing,

The problem of determining what areas of research to fund permeates science policy. Nations now invest substantial sums in supporting discovery research in natural sciences and engineering (NSE). They do so for many reasons. Discovery research helps to generate new technologies; to foster innovation and economic competitiveness; to improve quality of life; and to achieve other widely held social or policy objectives such as improved public health and health care, protection of the environment, and promotion of national security. The body of evidence on the benefits that accrue from these investments is clear: in the long run, public investments in discovery-oriented research yield real and tangible benefits to society across many domains.

These expenditures, however, are accompanied by an obligation to allocate public resources prudently. In times of increasing fiscal pressures and spending accountability, public funders of research often struggle to justify their funding decisions — both to the scientific community and the wider public. How should research funding agencies allocate their budgets across different areas of research? And, once allocations are made, how can the performance of those investments be monitored or assessed over time? These have always been the core questions of science policy, and they remain so today

Such questions are notoriously difficult to answer; however, they are not intractable. An emerging “science of science policy” and the growing field of scientometrics (the study of how to measure, monitor, and assess scientific research) provide quantitative and qualitative tools to support research funding decisions. Although a great deal of controversy remains about what and how to measure, indicatorbased assessments of scientific work are increasingly common. In many cases these assessments indirectly, if not directly, inform research funding decisions.

In some respects, the primary challenge in science assessment today is caused more by an overabundance of indicators than by a lack of them. The plethora of available indicators may make it difficult for policy-makers or research funders to determine which metrics are most appropriate and informative in specific contexts. (p. 2 print version, p. 22 PDF)

…

Assessment systems tied to the allocation of public funds can be expected to be contentious. Since research funding decisions directly affect the income and careers of researchers, assessment systems linked to those decisions will invariably have an impact on researcher behaviour. Past experiences with science assessment initiatives have sometimes yielded unintended, and undesirable, impacts. In addition, poorly constructed or misused indicators have created scepticism among many scientists and researchers about the value and utility of these measures. As a result, the issues surrounding national science assessment initiatives have increasingly become contentious. In the United Kingdom and Australia, debates about national research assessment have been highly publicized in recent years. While such attention is testimony to the importance of these assessments, the occasionally strident character of the public debate about science metrics and evaluation can impede the development and adoption of good public policy. (p. 3 print version, p. 23 PDF)

Based on this introduction and the acknowledgement that there are ‘too many metrics’, I was looking for evidence that the panel would have specific recommendations for avoiding an over-reliance on metrics (which I see taking place and accelerating in many areas, not just science funding).

In the next section however, the report focussed on how the expert panel researched this area. They relied on a literature survey (which I’m not going to dwell on) and case studies of the 10 countries they reviewed in depth. Here’s more about the case studies,

The Panel was charged with determining what the approaches used by funding agencies around the world had to offer about the use of science indicators and related best practices in the context of research in the NSE. As a result, the Panel developed detailed case studies on 10 selected countries. The purpose of these case studies was two-fold: (i) to ensure that the Panel had a fully developed, up-to-date understanding of indicators and practices currently used around the world; and (ii) to identify useful lessons for Canada from the experiences of research funding agencies in other countries. Findings and instructive examples drawn from these case studies are highlighted and discussed throughout this report. Summaries of the 10 case studies are presented in Appendix A

The 10 countries selected for the case studies satisfied one or more of the following four criteria established by the Panel:

• Knowledge-powerful countries: countries that have demonstrated sustained leadership and commitment at the national level to fostering science and technology and/or supporting research and development in the NSE.

• Leaders in science assessment and evaluation: countries that have notable or distinctive experience at the national level with use of science indicators or administration of national science assessment initiatives related to research funding allocation.

• Emerging science and technology leaders: countries considered to be emerging “knowledge-powerful” countries and in the process of rapidly expanding support for science and technology, or playing an increasingly important role in the global context of research in the NSE.

• Relevance to Canada: countries known to have special relevance to Canada and NSERC because of the characteristics of their systems of government or the nature of their public research funding institutions and mechanisms. (pp. 8-9 print version, pp. 28-29 PDF)

The 10 countries they studied closely are:

  • Australia
  • China
  • Finland
  • Germany
  • the Netherlands
  • Norway
  • Singapore
  • South Korea
  • United Kingdom (that’s more like four countries: Scotland, England, Wales, and Northern Ireland)
  • United States

The panel did also  examine other countries’ funding schemes but not with the same intensity. I didn’t spend a lot of time on the case studies as they were either very general or far too detailed for my interests. Of course, I’m not the target audience.

The report offers a glossary and I highly recommend reading it in full  because the use of language in these report is not necessarily standard English. Here’s an excerpt,

The language used by policy-makers sometimes differs from that used by scientists. [emphasis mine] Even within the literature on science assessment, there can be inconsistency in the use of terms. For purposes of this report, the Panel employed the following definitions:*

Discovery research: inquiry-driven scientific research. Discovery research is experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts, without application or intended use (based on the OECD definition of “basic research”in OECD, 2002).

Assessment: a general term denoting the act of measuring performance of a field of research in the natural sciences and engineering relative to appropriate international or global standards. Assessments may or may not be connected to funding allocation, and may or may not be undertaken in the context of the evaluation of programs or policies.

Scientometrics: the science of analyzing and measuring science, including all quantitative aspects and models related to the production and dissemination of scientific and technological knowledge (De Bellis, 2009).

Bibliometrics: the quantitative indicators, data, and analytical techniques associated with the study of patterns in publications. In the context of this report, bibliometrics refers to those indicators and techniques based on data drawn from publications (De Bellis, 2009). (p. 10 print version, p. 30 PDF)

Next up: my comments and whether or not I found specific recommendations on how to avoid over-reliance on metrics.

Trent University (Ontario, Canada) and nanosilver toxicology studies

3 Replies

One of the scientists on a research team at Trent University (Ontario, Canada) is claiming that safety questions about nanomaterials are not being asked and so the team is embarking on a study of silver nanoparticles and their impact on a lake ecosystem. From the May 2, 2012 news item on Nanowerk,

Dr. Chris Metcalfe, professor and director of the Institute for Watershed Science at Trent University, is the principal investigator on the Lake Ecosystem Nanosilver (LENS) project with Trent researchers, Drs. Maggie Xenopoulos, Holger Hintelmann and Paul Frost, and colleagues from Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada.

“This is a high profile project that will have the eyes of the scientific community on Trent,” said Professor Metcalfe. “We’re fortunate that we have four world-class researchers on our team.” Over the past decade, tiny substances called nanomaterials have become part of our daily lives.

It’s possible that the clothes you’re wearing, or the sunscreen you just applied, contain nanomaterials. Because of this growing use, there is now concern that nanomaterials may pose threats to the environment.

“We have seen an exponential growth in the use of nanomaterials,” said Professor Xenopoulos, an associate professor in the Biology department at Trent University. “However, questions of safety are not being asked.” [emphasis mine]

Likely the claim is a little overenthusiasm or a lack of clarity on the speaker’s part since there has been more than one study about nanosilver particles and safety, including one at Purdue University mentioned in a March 4, 2010 posting on the Beyond Pesticides blog. The Purdue study (The effects of silver nanoparticles on fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) embryos) is behind a paywall.

Here’s a bit more about silver nanoparticles and the LENS study,

While the benefits of nanomaterials are recognized, we know little about their risks to health and the environment. Due to their extremely small size, nanomaterials interact with cells and organic molecules, raising questions about their impact on organisms.

Due to their antibacterial properties, nanosilver particles are among the most widely-used nanomaterials in consumer goods. Clothing, home appliances, paint, bandages and food storage containers are a few of the products which may contain nanosilver. As we use and dispose of these products, there is a risk that nanosilvers will travel through our municipal water systems into our lakes and rivers.

The research team is working to understand the effect of nanosilver particles on the aquatic environment. Initial laboratory research conducted at Trent indicates that nanosilver can strongly affect aquatic organisms at the bottom of the food chain, such as bacteria, algae and zooplankton.

To further examine these effects in a real ecosystem, the team is conducting a study at the Experimental Lakes Area, near Kenora, in northwestern Ontario.

The LENS project will monitor changes in a lake’s ecosystem that occur after the addition of nanosilver. It will follow nanosilver as it travels through the lake ecosystem, track effects through the entire food web, and determine how resulting changes alter ecosystem function.

There’s more about the LENS project on the Trent University LENS (Lake Ecosystem Nanosilver) Project page (excerpt),

Our previous laboratory research has shown that nanosilver in the aquatic environment first affect organisms at the bottom of the food chain, including bacteria, algae and zooplankton. These responses may have devastating effects upon aquatic ecosystems by reducing overall productivity and altering the cycling of nutrients, such as carbon, nitrogen and phosphorus. There may be compensatory mechanisms within aquatic ecosystems that can mitigate these responses, but it is impossible to predict these responses using laboratory studies. Through support from the Strategic Grants Program of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and Environment Canada, a team of researchers from Trent University, Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada will conduct a study at the Experimental Lakes Area (ELA) in northwestern Ontario by adding nanoform silver to a small lake over two summer field seasons ion 2013-14. During nano-silver additions, we will monitor the lake for changes to nutrient cycling and the biological effects within the entire food chain. However, in 2012, before starting the lake additions, we will refine our approach by determining what happens in mesocosms (i.e. plastic tubes) that are deployed in lakes. ELA has been used for over 40 years as a living laboratory to study the effects of pollutants in the environment, including past studies of the impacts of pollution from phosphorus, acid deposition, mercury and endocrine disruptors. These studies have resulted in policies to reduce the impacts of pollution. While we do not take lightly the impact that this study will have upon a lake in ELA, this approach is the only way to determine ecosystem level impacts and to influence regulatory policy regarding the ecological risks of NMs.

This is a three-year project, which starts this year (2012).