Towards a Framework for Major Science Investments in Canada-Social and
Health Science Considerations and Implications
Keynote Address-Longitudinal
Social and Health Surveys in an International Perspective
Arthur J. Carty
Montreal, Québec 26 January 2006
[ PDF
Version ]
Good evening,
Bonsoir et merci de votre accueil Joseph. C’est un honneur d’être parmi vous ce soir et de vous adresser
quelques mots sur l’importance des grandes enquêtes longitudinales, sociales et de santé.
I approach this talk with some trepidation for at least 3 reasons:
(a) Firstly, I am not a scholar of the social and health sciences. I am a chemist and that is usually
enough to stop the conversation at any dinner table. However, to my credit you might say, I failed
as a father to produce any hardscientists. The best I could manage (with the help of my lovely wife
Hélène of course) was two sons in the dismal
science (economics) and a daughter with strong skills as a linguist!
(b) Secondly, I am here among international experts in social and health cohort studies who have vast experience
in the increasingly complex and challenging field of providing information and knowledge on the long-term health
and social conditions of the society we live in.
(c) Thirdly, this is the first public presentation I have made since the federal election on Monday and I’m sure that
I’m going to get myself into trouble with someone!
This evening I have divided my talk into three themes which I hope will open a dialogue with you on the future of
Longitudinal Social and Health Surveys in Canada.
To begin, I will give a brief overview of Canada’s progress in Science and Technology over recent years and the
challenges we face in the future.
Secondly I will outline a proposed framework for the Evaluation, Decision Making and Oversight of Major Science Investments
in Canada which my office has developed in consultation with the research community.
And thirdly, I would like to point out how longitudinal cohort studies might be effectively integrated into this framework.
Science and Technology in Canada: An Overview
(Slide 2 – International R&D Trends - HERD)
Those in the audience who are non Canadian may not be fully aware of the fundamental transformation of the research
environment in Canada over the last few years as a result of massive investments in R&D and innovation.
This has come about in part because the Federal Government has had large surplus budgets 8 years in a row and is the only
G-8 country in surplus this year. Since 1997 some $14B of incremental federal investments have been committed to research
much of which has gone to universities and research hospitals. This enormous investment has given Canada by far the
highest per capita investments in university research in the G-8 Group of Advanced Nations and second only to Sweden in the
entire OECD, as shown here. The landscape has changed dramatically; university research infrastructure is now comparable,
if not better than any in the world; our institutions can now attract and retain the best Canadian and international stars
and invest in new areas of science and big science in an unprecedented way.
(Slide 3 – Canadian R&D Overview)
(Slide 4 - Some Major Impacts of Recent Investments in University Research - 1. Research Funding
and Infrastructure)
These investments have been enabled by the creation of new programs and partnerships that have allowed research to
flourish in this country. These include:
-
More than doubling of Research Council budgets (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC),
the relatively recently created Canadian Institutes for Health Research (CIHR), and the Social Sciences and
Humanities Research Council (SSHRC))
-
Infrastructure and equipment for research that is competitive with best in the world (the Canada Foundation for
Innovation (CFI) (endowed with $3.65 B as an arms length foundation to restore and bring research infrastructure up to
state of the art) and Genome Canada)
-
Co-funding from provinces, partners has significantly enhanced investments ($5 B from provinces, other partners, $55 M
from G.C.)
-
Networks of Centres of Excellence (now 21 NCEs) and 52 Community Research Alliances (SSHRC) have fostered collaboration
and are models being followed around the world (we have learnt how to build critical mass and partner with others)
(Slide 5 - Some Major Impacts of Recent Investments in University Research - 2. Attracting and Retaining
Research Talent)
-
The Canada Research Chairs Program created in 2000 and CFI funding have attracted outstanding young and established
scholars from other countries. For example the social and health science have attracted some outstanding established
and young stars from other countries in areas you are discussing here including population, health and social statistics.
We now have a brain gain not a brain drain.
-
Rising Canadian stars have been retained
-
Faculty renewal is occurring at a critical time. Over 3,000 new faculty recruited at universities in 03-04
(incl. 700 from USA and 500 from other countries)
-
There has been significant growth in graduate student enrolment and post-doctoral community
-
4,000 new graduate fellowships have been established
-
Overall employment in the R&D community has risen
These are remarkable achievements. If we can (and we must) sustain these efforts, Canada will benefit significantly,
not only from the point of view of scientific reputation, but in terms of higher quality of life through economic growth,
environmental sustainability, improved health and greater social cohesion. There is in fact lots of evidence that Canada’s
programs are being implemented by others and that we are drawing international attention as a hot spot and significant
player internationally.
-
Finland and the Netherlands for example have heaped praise on Canada’s progress towards becoming a leading knowledge nation.
A recent news release from the Netherlands said, “There’s nothing wrong with Finland, however Canada’s innovation activities
can no longer be ignored. If you think that Canada is the country of Inuit, wood choppers and oil tycoons, you are simply
wrong. Canada has as its innovation pearl the Blackberry company, Research in Motion. This company is a market leader
with its hand held devices, which may be used both as phones and for email. All Dutch politicians in The Hague use this
device to exchange party positions at high speed.” The Dutch are recommending that Europe look to Canada for advice on
research and innovation!
Not withstanding our progress, there are challenges ahead. In a world of rapid change and increasing complexity driven by
globalization, the emergence of new economic powers and political and social upheaval in the developing world, science
and technology are going to become more and more vital to us as a society.
(Slide 6 - Socio-Economic Policy Drivers for Canada in the 21st Century)
This next slide is a synopsis of some of the issues we are going to need to face in the future.
-
Our economic future – productivity, trade and innovation
- Canada is a small market, highly trade-dependent nation – We will be challenged to maintain our standard of living in a
world of emerging economic powers in countries such as China and India who will also compete not just in low cost
manufactured products on the basis of innovation and S&T. We cannot compete on the basis of low cost manufactured
products. Use our brains, our R&D to increase productivity and compete at the high end through innovation.
Brains not brawn are the drives – HQP and strong research base very important.
-
Our natural resources
- We will need to gain sustainable competitive edge through innovations in extraction, production and conservation of our
natural resources
Fundamental underpinning of our economy
-
Our environment – Global warming: fundamental implications for our economy, ecology and society
- Canada’s North and coastal regions are particularly vulnerable to these changes at a much more rapid pace than anywhere
else on the planet. Canada’s role in the 2007-08 International Polar Year will be to provide a platform to study the
human dimension of arctic and northern science, particularly environmental changes.
Can we make sustainable energy and environmental technologies economic drivers?
- Our health and security
- Aging populations
- Increasing virulence and rapidity of infectious diseases
Represents both a threat and opportunity for our biotech industry.
-
Our changing society
-
Rapidly changing and increasingly complex nature of the Canadian social landscape – demographics, immigration, changing
family structure, rural to urban migration, safe cities, smart transportation.
-
Our learning, social and political institutions are being challenged to adapt and remain relevant to emerging needs
Relatively speaking, the scientific community has done well over the last decade. The expenditure on S&T as a percentage
of all government expenditures has increased from 3.6% to 4.9% since 1994. However in order to move forward together,
we must agree on the challenges facing our scientific community.
(Slide 7 – Challenges for Science and Technology)
It is not a given that we will remain the highest per capita investors in university research if we do not consistently
articulate the value of our research, the long term importance and relevance of our work and the ability for us to
demonstrate that we can provide solutions.
But being a big investor means dealing with big problems. And Canada’s scientific community is facing a number of national
challenges that have international impact. In trying to remain relevant to the most pressing issues and needs of our
citizens, our scientists have taken on a more pressing role, which is to keep Canadians safe from pandemics and infectious
diseases, to maintain our access to clean water and to protect our environment from pollution. These issues are of concern
to Canadians, but can also have a positive impact on the global community. Although these priorities may appear obvious to
us, it is our responsibility to create opportunities for public engagement on issues of importance through the quality and
integrity of our research and openness to debate.
The World of Big Science and Major Science Investments
I would like to shift gears now to talk about what some people refer to as big science and what we see as a broader
concept – Major Science Investments.
Coming from a natural sciences background and as President of the NRC (a funder and manager of national and international
facilities) I fully appreciated that Canadian investments in big science projects facilities and networks could provide
unrivalled opportunities for Canadians to compete at the very forefront of their fields, whether in astronomy, health
sciences, particle physics, space or the social sciences. Yet as Chairman of the Board of the Canadian Light Source,
a third generation synchrotron, officially opened in October 2004 (a very proud moment for Canadian science, broadcast live,
nationwide on the CBC National News), I was also acutely aware of the patchwork of funding sources cobbled together to
build and, as it turned out only partially operate the facility. Only a bail out by the federal government eventually
provided sufficient operating $ for this world class facility. This served as a final wake-up call to the scientific
community and governments to develop a more holistic, effective and transparent mechanism for proposing, evaluating,
funding and ensuring the long term viability of major science investments.
(Slide 8 - Major Science Investments: Rationale for a More Coherent
Approach)
In summary, several important issues stood out.
-
No natural home or single window of entry for some proposals
Proposals come forward in Ad hoc fashion – considered as one off’s.
Sometimes no competitive context big science vs small, big vs big
-
Difficulties of priority-setting across a broad spectrum of proposals, on the one hand, and individual major initiatives
becoming political footballs on the other!
-
Fragmented funding and lack of coordination
-
Inadequate financial planning leading to cost overruns and delays
-
Management and oversight issues – difficulty linking existing projects back into the central decision making for ongoing
operating funds and upgrades
In short, we needed a more coherent framework.
(Slide 9 – Major Science Investments – Consultative Process)
The initial work on this was done by Tom Brzustowski (then President of NSERC) and I with staff from our agencies.
The work continued when I moved to my current position as National Science Advisor in April 2004 and a discussion paper
was vetted by the Presidents of the Research Granting Councils and Foundations prior to release to the general scientific
community for comment in January 2005. The document set forth the rationale and context as well as a proposed framework
for MSI’s.
-
We received detailed and well considered comments from over 70 organizations which we reviewed over the summer.
-
In September 2005 we produced a second discussion paper which recommended a framework model from a number of options.
-
And in October we held a workshop of senior officials that was an impressive representation of over 40 Vice Presidents
(Research) from major universities, directors of existing major science projects and government representatives.
We came out of that meeting with a strong endorsement for moving ahead with a model which I believe will be of importance
to the entire natural health, engineering and social sciences communities.
(Slide 10 – Scope of Framework)
What is a Major Science Initiative?
A major science project “… addresses a set of scientific problems of such significance, scope and complexity as to require
an unusually large-scale collaborative effort, along with the facilities, instruments, human resources and logistic support
to carry it out.”* MSIs are national and international in scope and have an extraordinary impact. We adopted the following
criteria:
- Magnitude and cost of the project is beyond the scope of any single institution, department or agency
Usually $100 M or greater over lifetime.
- Long-term financial responsibility or legacy issues must be addressed including ongoing operating funds, potential
decommissioning, and long term data management issues
- Requirements for critical mass and large-scale coordination
- Primary objective is to advance scientific research, not technological development
- Scope and scale of non-scientific benefits merit particular attention
So it is not only a question of cost and value for money but of extraordinary impact for the investment that is the
defining criterion.
It was at this stage that, thanks in large part to input from my colleagues at CIHR, SSHRC and Statistics Canada as well as
from researchers across Canada that a broader context for Major Science Investments emerged:
(Slide 11 – Scope of Framework)
“In recent years MSIs have become increasingly applicable and important to the advancement of health and social sciences
through distributed knowledge infrastructure projects which produce key datasets that exist as continuing research resources.”
-
To illustrate let me give you a few examples of Major Science Investments:
-
Facilities and networks funded and located in Canada as part of a global network
-
Facilities and networks located in Canada as a major or unique contribution to the global scientific community
-
International facilities and networks located outside Canada, in which Canada is a partner
-
A distributed infrastructure that constitutes a major science investment when considered as a whole
-
A distributed research program on a scientific theme e.g. requiring coordinated but widespread field research over many
years. Recent climate change and environmental networks. At some point might resemble an MSI.
However an MSI is not simply the ramping up of a cumulative set of individual research projects that are loosely connected
(i.e. not a shopping list) but rather a major, centrally coordinated research endeavour that has a minimum threshold of
critical mass and investment required to ensure success.
(Slide 12 – Priority-Setting Criteria)
Projects would be evaluated on the basis of the following core criteria:
-
Scientific Excellence
-
Quality of the research team and quality of the proposal – must be world class
-
Assessment of project’s integration with and impact on the field and overall research system, in Canada
and internationally
Major impact on field; would bring national and international credibility and stature.
-
Should include interdisciplinary elements where appropriate
More than just moving the science forward.
-
Economic, Social and Environmental Benefits to Canada
-
Impact on Highly Qualified Personnel
Big science often provides excellent training.
-
Cost: good value for money or not as good as the sum total of small science!
-
Full lifetime costs including, among others, capital, operating, probable upgrades, access costs, risk and decommissioning
Contingency must be built in.
-
Balance projected cost with expected benefits and returns
-
Risk Assessment and Management
-
Scientific and technical risk
Will it work? Will it answer the questions posed?
-
Financial, environmental, worker and public safety, security
-
Project Management, Oversight and Control: strong management team needed to oversee $100 M projects
We believe a rigorous, transparent process would in fact reduce the ad hoc manner in which we have proceeded in the past.
(Slide 13 - Project Approval)
(Slide 14 – Benefits of the Proposed Model)
In summary the approach
-
Allows for bottom up and top down proposals
-
Is a systematic assessment and prioritization of proposals in larger context of the government’s agenda
- Encourages early engagement of all relevant stakeholders
-
Ensures timely decisions through a coordinated process
-
Insists proposals incorporate full lifecycle costs including capital and operating
MSIP Membership: NSA; Pres. of NSERC, CIHR, SSHRC, CFI, NRC; 4 DMs and 2 international members.
-
Constructs robust oversight mechanisms and opportunities for project renewal
-
Builds on expertise and experience in existing agencies
MSIP: coordinates and ensures all potential players are plugged in.
So you might now ask “What are the Implications for Social Sciences and Health Research?”
The third element of my talk deals with the implications of this approach for the social and health sciences.
(Slide 15 – S&T in the Knowledge Age – A Systems Approach for Public
Policy)
-
If we look at issues and problems which governments must face, science and social science are involved in almost all of
these issues
-
It is becoming more and more evident that there is an insatiable and exponential demand for and supply of scientific
knowledge to support policy and decision making
-
One of the challenge to governments – extracting value from science for the development of policy
-
Clients and the public are becoming more demanding, informed and better-organized in shaping public policy
- Social and health research data are a crucial component of a complex, dynamic and constantly evolving information system
-
Emerging technologies, new tools and interdisciplinary approaches are providing new opportunities for research across the
social and health sciences.
How do we pull all of this together so that the research and information can be made available for policy development?
Solutions lie in integrated approaches, cooperation across fields and jurisdictions i.e. collaboration, integration,
partnerships and teamwork have become critical elements in bringing knowledge to bear.
(Slide 16 – Major Population Cohort Studies in Social and Health
Sciences)
So having described the MSI framework you might well ask what are the implications for Population Cohort Studies in the
Social and Health Sciences?
As Michael Wolfson mentioned this morning at the opening session, large population cohort studies share some of the
characteristics of Big Science and Major Science Investments:
-
Population Cohort Studies are long-term, highly complex, often requiring multidisciplinary, dedicated research efforts
spanning decades and generations.
-
They can be very expensive, over the lifetime of the study (for some, probably in the hundreds of millions of $ – in
some ballpark as telescopes, particle physics)
-
There are requirements for sound planning and design and for the collection, management and analysis of massive data
sets with a wide range of variables (not unlike Hubble or Gemini data!)
-
Need for robust, yet adaptable research platforms that are accessible yet secure
-
Need to be both research driven and relevant to policy stakeholders in government and public
Preferably address grand challenges which excite the imagination.
Scientific questions asked need to be seminal and the results important for society.
-
Importance of governance stewardship and long-term sustainability are crucial and must be addressed – just as in big
science hard scientific tools and platforms.
-
Opportunities to integrate new tools (e.g. genomics, FMRI) biological markers and genomics into survey protocols.
-
Computer modelling and simulation are increasingly essential for integration, testing and theory development.
Modelling and simulation are ubiquitous and extremely powerful these days.
(Slide 17 – But major Cohort Studies are not without their own issues and
challenges)
Cohort studies may present unique issues that are sometimes misunderstood by governments and the natural science community: -
consider for example the theory or hypothesis driving the study – and how to test it:
In the physical sciences it is often possible to design a specific experimental test of a theory – by controlling
parameters to give a yes/no answer.
-
Nature of hypotheses and analyses
-
But the world of humans is in a real sense far more complex, dynamic and interactive than that of atoms or stellar objects.
As a result, hypotheses are typically not as hard edged / well defined as in physics or chemistry. For example, in a world
where “everything affects everything else”, sometimes the nature of the science and peer review processes themselves are
potentially more contentious. So these are challenges.
-
Management of massive data sets can be an issue:
-
Data entry, storage, quality control, compatibility are critical and modes of access must respect privacy and data
confidentiality – less a problem in astronomy than in health and social sciences.
-
In terms of linkages to policy however, social and health science, by their very nature, invite immediate application to
the policy debates of the day (much more so than cosmology, say) even though much of the work with large cohorts is more
akin to basic (rather than applied) research. Of course the result/conclusion may be a long time in the making!
-
Costs
-
Design – As others have mentioned here - - the social science community does not often think big nor necessarily work
easily in large multidisciplinary teams, although this may be changing. Design and ongoing management of large scale
longitudinal studies requires considerable investment in time, and coordination to agree on a truly robust multidisciplinary
and organizational approach
-
Recruitment, monitoring and retention of people in a longitudinal study is a completely different process than working with
natural and physical specimens – people have choice, opinions and rights - rocks and molecules do not!
-
Data security, access and ethics
-
Personal privacy, commercial confidentiality, data integrity are fundamental considerations for endeavours of this nature
-
Systems integration – local, national, international
-
Integrating data and results from different but related studies may be problematic, particularly across national boundaries.
In the physical and biological sciences this is less of a problem.
The Way Forward
(Slide 18 – The Way Forward)
From my perspective it makes eminent sense to include major longitudinal cohort studies within a Major Science Investment
Framework. Indeed this could be a significant innovation in Canadian science policy because it would do several things:
-
Raise the profile and importance of social and public health research in Canada and internationally
-
The framework and the process would ensure the backing and buy-in of all stakeholders towards one or more ground breaking
national projects. There would of course have to be a consensus in the community on which national cohort study or studies
to propose. There is an interesting paper in your binders on the issue of a unified strategy for a Canadian national cohort
initiative by Michael Kramer or John Frank.
-
The framework would provide a transparent and rigorous process for ensuring the quality, effectiveness and proper financial
support over the long term
-
It has long been accepted that the government plays a crucial role in funding basic and pre-competitive research – research
that forms the basis for the training of HCP and the productivity enhancing innovations in the private sector. Large scale
health and social science longitudinal studies can provide an analogous foundation for policy innovation and development in
the public sector.
(Slide 19 – What is Required)
But, I am certainly not an expert in this field and I see this conference as an opportunity to further consider the MSI
approach we hope to move forward soon. So what is needed?
-
Well, input from this audience on the value of this “big science” approach in advancing knowledge through 21st Century
longitudinal population studies - Is this a useful mechanism? How could it be better?
-
You need a clear vision on how these investments can help answer the grand societal and health challenges we face
-
Also essential will be an agreement to work as a community in Canada and internationally,
across all disciplines, to ensure
that the model you develop is of the highest scientific integrity and social value over the long term.
(Slide 20 - Conclusions)
In conclusion, at the beginning of the 21st Century we stand at a crossroad in Science for defining bold new ways of
addressing issues that will be of importance to us all not just now but in generations to come
-
I believe that a grand scheme of a highly networked, multidisciplinary research platform in social and health sciences is
a real possibility
-
This conference is an important step in developing that scheme and it is a challenge for all of us to make it a reality.
Merci, Thank you.
|
