Organized by Genome Canada
Antimicrobial resistance (AMR) is a global health threat. Recent studies indicate that drug resistant microbes could cause the deaths of 10 million people a year and cost the global economy $60 trillion to $100 trillion by 2050 indicated Jim O’Neill, a former Goldman Sachs economist. The need to find solutions is a national priority. Canada, through its federal action plan, is taking steps to prevent, limit, and control the emergence and spread of AMR, with a focus on surveillance, stewardship, and innovation.
The World Health Organization stated antimicrobial resistance has become one of the most serious global health threats of modern times and urges governments to improve surveillance and research and that policy makers enable change by promoting appropriate use of antibiotics, increasing awareness, and rewarding innovation.
Based on the above, policy options will be explored on how Canada can be a leader in pathogen surveillance utilizing genomic analysis, furthering the use of genomic databases to assess the emergence and spread of AMR, and innovative genomic tools to diagnose and treat microbial infection quickly and efficiently.
This workshop is part of Genome Canada’s GPS series "Where Genomics, Public Policy and Society Meet." The session will facilitate a dialogue between researchers, policy-makers and industry interested in GE3LS (Genomics and its Ethical, Economic, Environmental, Legal, and Social aspects). A draft policy brief on antimicrobial resistance reviewing the context, issues of concern relevant to Canadians as well as innovative genomic solutions and policy options to help manage this global health threat will be presented. Furthermore, invited commentators from academia, government and industry will discuss the policy options examined in this brief.
Organized by Agriculture and Agri-food Canada
The global population is on track to reach 9 billion people by 2050. At the same time, climate change and a growing middle class are forcing the worlds’ farmers to grow more food on limited arable land. Biotechnology already plays a key role in modern agriculture. As our increased understanding of the technology allows us to boost food production and develop a limitless range of functional and value-added applications – and the tools become cheaper and more accessible – ag biotech will become increasingly important in tackling food security and malnutrition.
Yet 20 years after they were first commercialized, genetically modified (GM) foods remain a contentious issue in the global food system. The discord sown by the lack of a conciliatory approach is alienating a significant segment of the population and threatens to limit farmers’ access to safe technologies that can improve their incomes, provide sustainable solutions to environmental challenges, and help feed the world. In Canada, our approach to GM foods is centred on a regulatory system that focuses on strict, science-based safety criteria and leaves commercialization decisions to private industry. While this approach upholds health and safety and fosters an innovation-friendly business climate, we are faced with the absence of any clear system to address the range of socioeconomic impacts GM foods invariably have on stakeholders throughout the value chain. Fearmongering and baseless claims over the dangers of GMOs aside, growers, handlers, processors, retailers, and consumers all have legitimate concerns over the place of biotechnology in our food system, and our continued failure to address these issues has negative repercussions for both users and non-users of ag biotech. Calls for the government to intervene and “manage” these issues by moving away from a purely science-based approach and incorporating market-based considerations into the regulatory system invoke a whole range of policy challenges and will not provide a solution. If we are to develop a holistic and inclusive approach to biotechnology for the 21st century, all affected parties need to be a part of the conversation.
Canada is uniquely positioned to take the lead in this regard and set an example for the world –our vibrant biotech and organic sectors have been able to grow in tandem with each other, industry and grassroots organizations are collaborating to respond to evolving consumer demands, we have a robust science policy community, and Canadian citizens are eager to engage with their food system. We invite you to join us for this discussion that will bring together collaborative and forward-thinking experts to explore what roles government, industry, academia, and civil society groups can play in effectively managing the use of biotechnology to answer some of the major global challenges of our time.
Organized by Cybera
The scientific community and policy makers are bombarded with information about Big Data, the Internet of Things, and the power of analytics to produce amazing insights. This session will describe a model whereby these topics are integrated into a single model. At base is the data layer with inputs from an ever growing array of sensors. Networks are needed to collect this data and give it context. Storage and access systems are needed to give it context and turn it into information. Computational resources are required for analytics to convert the information into knowledge. Finally policy and education are required to ensure the knowledge informs the decision making process and leads to wise policies and governance. The panel will bring together representatives from the fields of data collection, data access, networking, computation and policy to show the power of aligning all these fields to make better public policy through data driven decision making.
Organized by York University
For 35 years since the passage of the US Bayh Dole Act (1980) and the subsequent growth of technology transfer in Canada (the Fortier Report, 1999), the predominant paradigm of university participation in Canada’s innovation agenda has been the commercialization of university technology and research collaborations with industry. With the termination of the Alliance for the Commercialization of Canadian Technology (ACCT) in March 2015 traditional concepts of technology transfer are broadening to include other forms of engagement between university researchers and non-academic research partners. These forms of collaboration include knowledge mobilization, graduate internships, experiential education, entrepreneurship and social innovation. Knowledge mobilization is emerging as a means to support not only economic impacts of university research but also social, environmental and health impacts and thus supporting broad notions of innovation.
The presence of social, environmental and health areas of focus in addition to traditional Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) priorities in Canada’s recent Science, Technology & Innovation Strategy (December 2014) calls for Canadian universities to collaborate across disciplines and across sectors to maximize the impacts of university research and contribute to Canada's broader innovation agenda. As well as being the primary generator of graduate level talent, universities are partnering with public, private and non-profit organizations to develop new solutions to persistent social, economic and environmental challenges. This emerging orientation of partnered research is supported by new funding programs that embrace new models of collaboration. Mitacs and Ontario Centres of Excellence fund graduate student internships with eligible non-profits. Ontario Social Enterprise Development Fund created opportunities for investment in social enterprises. Ontario Regional Innovation Centres Communitech, ventureLAB and NORCAT are collaborating on supports for social ventures. Networks of Centres of Excellence in Knowledge Mobilization (NCE KM) are working with industry, government and health care partners on bullying prevention, cyber security, stem cells, child and youth mental health and children’s emergency medical care.
This panel will explore the gaps left unfilled by traditional notions of university industry collaboration and explore the potential of Canada's universities to contribute to broader notions of innovation that create triple bottom line (economic, social, environmental) benefits for Canada. The panel will explore Canada’s existing assets and what we need to build in order to maximize the return on investments in university research?
Organized by the Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC), on the occasion of the release of its State of the Nation (SON) 2014 report
Description: The Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) is using the occasion of the CSPC to release its State of the Nation (SON) 2014 report, which tracks Canada’s science, technology and innovation (ST&I) performance against international standards of excellence. Using the most recent international data available, the report identifies Canada’s key ST&I performance challenges and opportunities, offering a common evidence base from which governments, industry and academia can chart the path forward.
STIC Chair Kenneth Knox will launch State of the Nation 2014 at the CSPC plenary session that morning, by highlighting the report’s key findings and conclusions. This afternoon concurrent session, The Path to Science, Technology and Innovation Competitiveness, will allow conference participants the opportunity to engage in active discussion with panel members on the way forward - i.e., on concrete ways to enhance Canada’s business innovation performance and protect and grow our knowledge and talent advantages. The session will challenge participants to think about what all ST&I sectors can do, working in concert, to improve Canada’s ST&I performance.
Organized by Evidence for Democracy
There has been increased discussion of what institution or structure(s) should exist to act as a voice for science within parliament as well as provide science advice to parliamentarians and the public. One proposed solution is to create a Parliamentary Science Officer (PSO) that would provide lawmakers with background and analysis on science-related issues, serve as a watchdog over the government’s use of scientific evidence and encourage evaluation and coordination of research expertise across federal agencies.
Does Canada need a Parliamentary Science Officer? Is this the best way to ensure a voice for science is represented in government? What are the alternatives?
This outcome-oriented panel will examine different models for institutionalizing a voice for science within government in light of historical attempts to provide science capacity and science advice to Canada’s federal government, experiences with a similar institution in other jurisdictions, and the Canadian experience with the Parliamentary Budget Office.
