Blog posts

Senior Fellow and Adjunct Professor, ISSP
Principal, Paulicyworks

The federal Science Minister has launched a nation-wide consultation to adapt a made in Canada Athena SWAN initiative, the internationally recognized venture that celebrates higher education institutions that have implemented practices to advance equity, diversity and inclusion in the sciences, especially in addressing gender equality.

Fulbright Visiting Research Chair in Science and Society, Winter/Spring 2015, ISSP, University of Ottawa. Current President of Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Honor Society. Sigma Xi was the first scientific organization to support the March.

The March for Science represented a new phenomenon in science, the rise of a mass demonstration of scientists with a broad agenda in support of the scientific enterprise as a whole rather than a particular issue. On 22 April 2017, over 100,000 scientists, engineers, students, and people concerned for the scientific enterprise marched in mass demonstrations numbering in support of science in major cities and more than a few small towns and even remote research stations. Inspired by the Women’s March and organized in only five months by a small group of scientists, most of whom were post-doctorate fellows.

Fulbright Visiting Research Chair in Science and Society for 2018, ISSP, University of Ottawa; Distinguished Professor and co-Director, School of Public and International Affairs & Genetic Engineering and Society Center, North Carolina University

I had the pleasure of attending the Canada SynBio 2018 Conference “Engineering Biology for Health,  in Toronto last week (http://www.ontariogenomics.ca/2018syntheticbiologyconference/).  While I’ve been to many such events in the United States, this was my first formal introduction to the Canadian innovation context for emerging biotechnologies.  The event was designed to build Canada’s synthetic biology community through networking, discussion, and planning.  Synthetic biology is most simply defined as “engineering biology to make useful things.”

Senior Fellow and Adjunct Professor, ISSP
Principal, Paulicyworks

Some years ago (25 to be more precise), with a government Chief Scientist, I had the privilege of  being invited to participate in a unique meeting in Acapulco of science and technology advisory bodies to heads of government in the Americas organized by the Consejo Consultivo de Ciencias (CCC). It was the second gathering of the group first initiated in Ixtapa in November 1991 where the objective was to have S&T perspectives and advice better integrated with foreign affairs and engage globally oriented scientists to provide a unique source of advice to heads of government on integration of science related public policy issues.

Senior Fellow and former CN Paul M. Tellier Chair on Business and Public Policy
University of Ottawa

[In the interests of length, supporting citations and references have been dropped from this blog copy. The full paper on this topic is available from the author at richard.french@uottawa.ca]

There is a remarkable consensus that it has proven unexpectedly difficult to identify the successes of Evidence-based Policy (EBP). Those who, mostly starting from the normative premises of EBP, have looked more closely at the use of scientific knowledge in policy-making, rediscovered a number of phenomena, many well-known to students of policy-making, which may account for this absence. It should be emphasized that the great majority of these scholars began their research motivated by an instinctive conviction of the value of scientific research for public policy.

Former Fulbright Visiting Research Chair, ISSP
Immediate Past President of Sigma Xi, the Scientific Research Honor Society

Issues of who benefits, who is allowed to contribute to science, who has a say in how science is governed, and how science is admitted into society and culture have come to maturity only in the past decade. Taken together, these issues are called “the right to science” and form a new framework for considering a full range of issues in science and technology policy.  

Senior Fellow and Adjunct Professor, ISSP
Principal,Paulicy works

Since 2005 when it was founded as the brainchild of John de la Mothe, a Canada Research Chair for innovation at University of Ottawa, and Nicholas Vonortas of George Washington University (GWU), the D. Allan Bromley Memorial Lecture and Event has provided graduate students with the opportunity to meet and exchange ideas with senior science and technology (S&T) policy advisors from the two capitals—Ottawa and Washington, D.C. In the spirit of honouring the legacy of the Canadian-born science advisor to the US President George H.W. Bush, the event alternates between the two capitals.

Inaugural Director and Core Member, ISSP
​​​​Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Ottawa

I had the privilege to be the rapporteur at the Workshop on Principles & Guidelines for Government Scientific Advice held on September 28, 2016 and to report the results to the plenary of the 2nd INGSA Conference two days later. The workshop was facilitated by James Wilsdon and Dan Sarewitz and included approximately 40 experts from 20 nations, with additional input from the Global Young Academy. I offer here observations from the rapporteur’s vantage point.

Postdoctoral Fellow, ISSP
Global Governance PhD candidate (ABD) at the Balsillie School of International Affairs, University of Waterloo

The Canadian government has expressed a strong commitment to grounding its action on climate change in fact-based decision-making and robust science. Computer-based climate-economy models have become standard tools for aiding decisions on climate policy. As such, these models offer an important and revealing example of the science- policy interface that the ISSP works in.

Canada Research Chair in Information Law,
Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa

Municipal police services in North America now commonly make digital crime maps available to the public online. These interactive maps allow individuals to choose a particular part of their city, as well as a window of time (crimes in the last 7, 14 or 21 days, for example). They can search for all mapped crimes in this time frame or can limit their search to particular types of crime. The results are returned in the form of icons on a map of the selected area. The icons represent different categories of criminal activity, and clicking on each icon will reveal basic information about the incident.

Core member, ISSP
Professor, School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa

Some of my colleagues and I take the old bingo-game approach to conferences: a point awarded for every mention of ‘paradigm shift,’ ‘disruptive,’ or ‘game changer.’ We can be rather smug about perceived naivety on the part of colleagues working in discovery-oriented research. We are also chronically irritated by the ongoing hype about genomics research, which is almost never lived up to. But I may have to shake off this jaded view of the world; it really does look like we have something genuinely exciting in the newest gene-editing techniques. CRISPR-Cas9 is not the first, but it is easy; so much so that the Nuffield Council on Bioethics warns about ‘garage scientists’ paying less than $200 to add it to their DIY toolkit. So, we have a technology which seems to work, is easy to use, and may be very affordable. No problems?

Core member, ISSP
Associate Professor, Department of Communication, University of Ottawa

Last month, I participated in a workshop where experts and practitioners representing different academic disciplines and policy fields came together to explore issues related to risk management and evidence-based decision-making. I left the meeting with two thoughts percolating in my head: We are, indeed, inhabitants of what German sociologist Ulrich Beck coined a ‘‘risk society.” And, to my dismay, we are yet to have a meeting of minds between the fact-based scientists/experts and the value-based public.

Former Fulbright Visiting Research Chair, ISSP
President and CEO, Center for Policy on Emerging Technologies (C-PET)

It may be inevitable that policy communities tend to be pre-occupied with the past. It is not because they lack intelligence or dedication. One reason certainly lies in their falling victim to the Fallacy of the New Normal. We look back and see dramatic change in just a few years, and we see a curve that keeps getting steeper as it rises toward today. But a survival instinct of the human mind – understandable, but potentially fatal - prevents us from looking ahead and expecting the process to continue. We kink the curve. We flatten it. We work on the assumption that today’s “new normal” is our starting-point, and the working principle that while there is change ahead it will be far less dramatic than that of past years. Of course, in the cases of political leaders and the policy community that sustains them, there is accountability to the people. And, among the people, the same tendency is clear, and may be more pronounced.

Senior Research Associate, Research Director, ISSP

ISSP’s series of panels on the new federal government’s commitment to evidence-based decision-making have stressed that scientific advice is an essential basis for good policy decisions. There is a recognition, of course, that science advice cannot determine policy. There are other factors and tradeoffs that enter into decision making. Public policy undoubtedly requires politics. Yet, I am interested in a different aspect touched on by speakers from the latest panel - what is needed to ensure that scientific evidence remains credible?

Former ISSP Fulbright Visiting Research Chair in Science and Society
Scholar of Yale University’s Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics

In April, the United Nations will hold meetings in Geneva for the third year in a row on the call to ban lethal autonomous weapons systems (AWS). This meeting and follow-up activities offer a unique opportunity for Canada and its new government to internationally assert moral leadership. While there is an emerging consensus that any short-term benefits of AWS systems will be dwarfed by detrimental longer-term impacts, forging an arms-control agreement to restrict their use will be difficult.

Senior Fellow and Adjunct Professor, ISSP
Principal, Paulicy works

​​​​​​​I think we are all familiar with our Nordic clime and the Canadian habit of building snowmen. What’s nice about them is that you can use your creativity and imagination to build them to any specification under the right conditions. No two are alike—just like snowflakes. But snowmen have a structural –if not temporal, flaw—while some may last through a winter, they will all eventually melt—leaving the water to dissipate---until we build them again in another winter if the conditions are propitious.

Inaugural Director and Core Member, ISSP
​​​​Associate Professor, Department of Geography, University of Ottawa

As I am entering the final three months of my five-year term, I want to briefly take stock and describe the transition planning. I have in front of me our first four annual reports -- I believe their titles describe the development of the ISSP quite well: First Steps, Creating a Network, Building on Strong Foundations and Towards a Graduate Program.

Senior Fellow, ISSP
Former federal Assistant Deputy Minister in NSERC, NRCan and Department of Finance

Canada has some of the best and the brightest scientists in the world. Take for instance Gilles Brassard in quantum cryptography, Paul Corkum in attosecond physics, and Barbara Sherwood-Lawlor in earth sciences who are international leaders in their fields. There is little doubt that Canadians are performing well given our modest resources. The question is: are we supporting our top talent effectively to allow them to collaborate with top researchers around the world, and to allow our companies to realize value from our research investment?

Writer in Residence, ISSP
Author, Science Writer and Performer

Whether it's at the annual AAAS conference or a small scientific symposium, there's a long tradition of including a (sometimes token) panel discussion or presentation about science and the media. For many attendees, this is a good time to get a coffee and check e-mails. This reach for the caffeine isn't because attendees aren't interested in the topic, but often because they've heard it all before. The mantra goes: Scientists' are poor communicators; journalists' sensationalize and get facts wrong. The solutions: We need to train scientists to better communicate, and increase journalists' science literacy.

Inaugural Director and Core Member, ISSP
​​​​Associate Professor,Department of Geography, University of Ottawa

Even holistic thinkers need to broaden their scope sometimes. This is my impression from the First Annual Conference on Governance of Emerging Technologies: Law, Policy and Ethics (Phoenix, May 20-21, 2013). This international event was organized by the Center for Law, Science and Innovation at Arizona State University, and the ISSP was among the fourteen sponsoring organizations. I hope that it will become an annual event – it was, without any doubt, a great success.

Faculty Affiliate, ISSP
Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa and NSERC Chair for Women in Science and Engineering

What a treat to meet the Hon. Marc Garneau! As NSERC / Pratt & Whitney Chair for Women in Science and Engineering, I had the privilege of being invited by Barbara Orser (Deloitte Professor in the Management of Growth Enterprises at uOttawa Telfer School of Management) who organized a briefing with the former Liberal Party of Canada Leadership Candidate and past astronaut. Assembled were a dazzling collection of women experts on the state of Canadian women in technology, law, management and small business, who advised Garneau on much needed strategies to make women a centerpiece of a vibrant Canadian digital and global economy.

Distinguished Researcher, Autodesk
Co-chair of Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Singularity University
Co-founder,Pink Army Cooperative

Forget math and physics. Biology is the hardest science. Engineers in other fields have built quantum computers whose operations come uncomfortably close to magic. They’ve made the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), a gigantic instrument for studying physics at its limits. And they’ve landed a 2,000 pound rover on Mars using a complicated, never-before-tested sky crane system. These projects were difficult but clearly doable.

Core Member, ISSP
Associate Professor, Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, University of Ottawa

Long ago and far away I took a course in philosophy of the social sciences. Surprisingly, this philosophy course involved a field trip and a very peculiar one indeed. On campus there was a small office in a bit of commercial space that housed, if memory serves, Technocracy Inc. The organisation was committed to advancing the cause of a rational and scientific approach to life in general and government in particular.

Core Member, ISSP
Associate Director, Graduate Studies, Institute of the Environment
Associate Professor, Department of Biology, University of Ottawa

In 2007, I attended a workshop to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Bruntland Commission's publication of "Our Common Future". During a panel discussion devoted to a retrospective analysis of the impact of Bruntland on public policy, the audience was pinned down by a perfect fusillade of references to "the policy process". Bleeding from a dozen wounds (granted, mostly superficial, or so it seemed at the time), I pleaded for clemency. Said I: "I am but a humble natural scientist, so please forgive my ignorance, but what, precisely, is the policy process?"