TBA The Biotechnology Initiative

The Voice of Bioscience in Ontario

NEWS

SPONSORS

Flash Slideshow

 


Spotlight shines on Toronto during first ever "National Canadian Science Policy Conference"

The first ever National Canadian Science Policy Conference, held October 28-30, brought notable names from the biotechnology and life sciences industry, government and academia to Toronto to discuss the future of Canada’s science policy infrastructure. During the three-day-event, approximately 60 speakers, including several prominent figures addressed more than 420 delegates on a variety of current related issues.

On day one, the conference opened with Ontario Minister of Research and Innovation John Milloy. Milloy discussed Ontario’s commitment to innovation, specifically through its “Innovation Agenda.” In all, the province has committed $3.2 billion towards this initiative focusing on Ontario’s scientific strengths.

His presentation was not without controversy as he questioned the support of such an agenda from the federal level, calling on the federal government to shoulder more responsibility in supporting Canada’s best and brightest.

Bruce Alberts, editor-in-chief of Science magazine, made some interesting points in his follow-on presentation. He was the first of many speakers at the conference to allude to the fact that there is a major language barrier standing in the way of governments being properly informed of what scientists in this country need from them to be successful.

Preston Manning’s keynote address highlighted the second day. His presentation titled: Overcoming the challenges to better science policy in Canada, brought up many key points as to why science in Canada is lagging, including the reason why it has so little influence in Ottawa. One key fact Manning offered up was that of the some 400 MPs and senators in Canada, he could count at most eight who had a solid science background of any kind. For this reason the two sides (government and academia) don’t see eye to eye.

Manning made three suggestions: 1. Increase the number of science-receptive people at senior political levels in Ottawa. 2. Raise the strategic and financial commitment to R&D in the private sector through incentives. 3 As alluded to, bridge the communication gap between scientists and politicians.

"There is disconnect between actual scientists and the people who control and distribute the funding," he explained. As such he felt that more effort was needed to bridge this communication gap between scientists and politicians.

Two plenary sessions served as the backdrop to the keynote address. The first session included panelists Alain Beaudet (president of CIHR), Peter Singer (professor of Medicine and Bioethics, U of T), Heather Munro-Blum (principal and vice chancellor, McGill) and Christopher Paige (VP Research, University Health Network). The second session included panelists Suzane Fortier (president of NSERC), Peter Nicholson (president, council of Canadian Academics), Mark Lievonen (president Sanofi-Pasteur, Peter Hackett (former VP Research NRC) and chair Chad Gaffield (president SSHRC).

The numerous prominent figures in this lineup reflected balanced and diverse representation from all sectors (private, industry, academia and government).

Day three’s line-up was just as jam-packed with Canada’s Junior Minister for Science, Gary Goodyear giving the key-note address.

Conference chair Dr. Mehrdad Hariri was overwhelmed by the higher than expected turnout and felt the conference achieved its three primary objectives: 1. Identifying and discussing current Canadian science policy issues. 2. To forge stronger links between scientists and policy makes. 3. To lay the foundation for establishing a Canadian “Virtual Institute” for science policy research.

“We had great feedback on the number and quality of the speakers and that the content was well timed. There was lots of networking going on and constructive discussion, with all sides getting to hear from one another,” said Dr. Hariri.

While Dr. Hariri is the first to admit that the three day conference wasn’t nearly enough time to reach all the stated goals the planning committee had intended to accomplish, he felt satisfied much ground was covered.

“I think the enthusiasm and willingness to continue this is what has caught my attention. And we are still capturing the ideas that were generated during the conference, the landscape will never be the same as before,” he said.

Attendees were also given the chance to convey their thoughts through conference evaluation forms. Already, more than 60 evaluation forms have been filled out and analyzed. Dr Hariri expects this number will continue to grow.

Conference-goers also made extensive use of the interactive message board found on the event’s website. The interactive tool was used to analyze the presentations, as well as generate debate on a diverse range of topics. The hope Dr. Hariri explains is that the site: www.sciencepolicy.ca will become a focal point for future discussions around science policy issues.

Additionally the sessions have been recorded and will be made available online very shortly. There will also be a published report that will provide information on the conference and what was discussed. Overall, it seems that conference organizers did their homework by putting together a stellar program. There was also a sense of real promise and that progress was being made.

One of the other aims of the conference was the creation of a “science policy network.”

The consensus opinion was that this effort was a good start. In fact, there is hope that the discussion about science policy that started in Toronto will progress, to lay a foundation for such a network, and as a very real possibility that the first steps have been taken to establish a Canadian “Virtual Institute” for science policy research.

Already plans are in the works for future Science Policy events to be hosted various cities. Leading candidates to host the next conference include Ottawa and Montreal.

These developments would go a long way to alleviating the frustration of the research community in getting their voices heard. Canada has much to gain if such an idea is realized.