Cancer Society spends more on fundraising than research - Canada - CBC News

A couple of months back I noted that there is not necessarily a relationship between the deadliest conditions and fundraising - well here is another article on charities and the research systems.

Cancer Society spends more on fundraising than research - Canada - CBC News

I mentioned previously that I am working on analysis of the interaction between charities and research. Our team didn't get funding for the research project and given the reaction to the topic I have experienced my question is my iis not treated with ahigher priority.

Why is it not on the radar.

Canada's knowledge economy - not so much

This is worth reading.

 

Canada’s knowledge economy: not so much - Inkless Wells - Macleans.ca

In the same vein the Science and Technology coucil has released a report on Canad'a innovation performance.

 

http://www.stic-csti.ca/eic/site/stic-csti.nsf/eng/00056.html

A new name for the EU Framework Programme

see.
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=MEMO/11/435&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en

MEMO/11/435

Brussels, June 21, 2011

New name for the future EU funding programme for research and innovation

Statement by Research, Innovation and Science Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn on the outcome of the competition to name the future EU funding programme for research and innovation

I am very pleased to announce that "Horizon 2020" is the winner of our "You Name it" online vote to name the future EU-funding programme for research and innovation.

Three names were shortlisted. Horizon 2020 received 3 055 votes against 2 785 for Imagine 2020 and 2 478 for Discover 2020. 8 318 votes were received.

The full name that I shall be putting forward towards the end of this year as part of the legislative proposal for the new programme will therefore be: "Horizon 2020 - the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation".

I congratulate the competition winners Marcela Endlova, a teacher from the Czech Republic, and Beata Zyngier, also a teacher, from Poland – who both suggested the name - and look forward to meeting both of them at the European Innovation Convention in December.

I was already very clear publicly in my first few weeks in this job that I was interested in having a new name for the Framework Programme.

I wanted the decision to be made in a democratic rather than a technocratic way.

I am delighted at the response and the interest this exercise has generated. We received over 1 600 suggestions for names. I warmly thank the jury and all those who took part.

The new name marks another step in our endeavour to establish research and innovation where it belongs, at the centre of EU policy making.

To achieve that in a lasting way, we need to connect with a wider public and give our work a higher profile.

So the new name is an important symbol of a new departure and a new adventure.

Horizon 2020 is not just a new name for the same Framework Programme.

It is the name for the new, integrated funding system that will cover all research and innovation funding currently provided through the Framework Programme for Research and Technical Development, the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT). These different types of funding will be brought together in a coherent and flexible manner.

This will be a smarter way to support researchers and innovators in Europe – so as to further boost excellence and to help ensure that good ideas reach the market and generate sustainable economic growth and new jobs. Research and innovation funding will focus more clearly on addressing global challenges. Needless red tape will be cut out and participation made simpler.

However, there is also, in the longer title, a certain continuity. We will not lose sight of the fact that the Framework Programmes have been a big success and that there has been much to be proud of. We are not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Europe is currently facing very serious economic challenges. But there are reasons for optimism. High on that list is the enormous and still largely untapped research and innovation capacity that we have in Europe.

So it is fitting that the new programme should have a name with an optimistic ring that evokes vision, new possibilities and an ambitious view of what EU-funded research and innovation can achieve.

Because it is only at an EU level that we can mobilise sufficient resources to tackle societal challenges.

Only through EU funding can we help our researchers and innovators to join forces and work together across national borders.

And only the EU can organise continent-wide competition to stimulate our researchers towards greater excellence.

Background

The "You Name It" competition was launched on 28 March (see IP/11/1371) and was linked to the stakeholder consultation on the Commission's Green Paper on the new research and innovation funding framework for the period post-2013 (see IP/11/138, MEMO/11/76).

The year "2020" was added to the names to show clearly that the future funding system will be designed to support the research and innovation objectives of the Europe 2020 Strategy. The words: "Framework Programme for Research and Innovation" are included to show an element of continuity with the past.

The winners receive a trip to the European Innovation Convention, which will take place in Brussels at the end of this year and will have the opportunity to meet Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn and other leading political, scientific and business figures.

Canadian government cuts spending

The NRC is getting its budget cut it seems.

The Harper government is slashing more than 20 per cent of the National Research Council of Canada’s budget. The NRC, which promotes leading-edge technological research and is headquartered on Montreal Road, will cut 25 science jobs across the country, the Citizen has learned.
“The loss of institutional knowledge will be huge,” said Gary Corbett, president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPPS), the scientists’ union. “You can’t just drain knowledge from the public sector. It will be devastating to Canada in future years, but the government doesn’t seem to care.” The NRC’s total budget stood at $881,137,581 in the last fiscal year; in 2011-12, it will be reduced to $690,836,000.

.........

Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/technology/Government+slashes+spending/4953501/story.html#ixzz1Ppo9kQ5q

The question for that arises from cutting science funding whether in Canada and the UK currently or Australia in the late 1990s for some fields is not about the cuts per se.

The question for me revolves around the idea that this indicates a failure of communication. Why do some governments not understand the value of investing in creating future potentials for a country's future.

Too much of the pro funding debate revolves around the idea that it will deliver X value or impact. Too little of the communication presents the concept that science is an options value invetment. We don't know what the future holds and we don't know what we will need. Science opens up those possibilies. An indvidual's country's investment allows it to tap in the world knowledge - it develops the people that will world on tomorrow's challenges.

We should stop with the promises and be honest about the value of science funding and try and communicate its value to a somebody who works on the dhop floor or works in retil six days a week and earns minimal wages.

Velocity of Australian Science Policy

For many years now I have been monitoring the time and efort devoted to science policy. My complete list is for Australia.

It was this list that made me think of calling this blog 'velocity'.

 


1989 Research, Innovation and Competitiveness – introduction of the rural Research and Development Corporations legislation.

1989 ‘Science and Technology for Australia’ policy statement.

1990 Cooperative Research Centres policy announced.

1990 ‘Building a Competitive Australia’ policy statement.

1991 One Nation’ economic and industry policy statement by the Prime Minister Paul Keating.

1992 Developing Australian Ideas: a blueprint for the 1990s (Science and Technology White paper).

1993

1994 Phase 1 of the Review of Rural Research and Development Corporations.

1994-95 Industry Commission inquiry (& report) on Research and Development (public & private funding).

1995 Phase 2 of the Review of Rural Research and Development Corporations.

1995 Innovation Statement – following a national consultation program.


Election of new government

 
1996 Changes to the business R&D incentives system in place since the mid 1980s.

1997 Mortimer review of business programs (incl R&D incentives).

1997 ‘Investing for growth’ policy statement.

1997 Priority Matters – review by the Chief scientist into priority setting in Commonwealth Government research.

1997 Announcement of West review of higher education financing and policy.

1997 Announcement of review into Health R&D.

1998 Report of the Parliamentary inquiry into the effects of policy reform on the levels of R&D performance.

1999 ‘The Virtuous Circle’ Wills report on the National Health and Medical Research Council strategic review.

1999 ‘New Knowledge new Opportunities’ discussion paper on research and research training.

1999 ‘Knowledge and Innovation’ policy statement on higher education.

2000 National Innovation Summit followed by a report by the Innovation Summit Implementation Group.

2000 ‘A Chance to Change’ Report of the inquiry by the Chief Scientist into Australia’s science and technology capability.

2001 Backing Australia’s Ability’ statement by the Prime Minister on funding for higher education and incentives for business funded research.

2002 National research Priorities announced.

2003 A major Government review to ‘map the Australia national innovation system’.

2004

2005 Announcement of a new measure of university research quality – the research quality framework

2006-2007 Major review of public support for science and innovation (Productivity Commission)

 
Dec 2007 Election of a new Government


2008 Major review of the Australian national innovation system

2009 Announcement of Innovation Policy Statement

2010 review relevant to policy implementation

Canadian review of research funding

Just like the Europeans, Canada is conducting a review of R&D funding.

The panel has been asked to review three types of federal research and development (R&D) initiatives:

1. Tax incentive programs such as the Scientific Research and Experimental Development (SR&ED) program;
2. Programs that support business R&D through: general support (e.g., Industrial Research Assistance Program) sector-specific support (e.g., Strategic Aerospace and Defence Initiative) ; and
3.  Programs that support business-focused R&D through federal granting councils and other departments and agencies, including research at universities and colleges (e.g., Centres of Excellence for Commercialization and Research) .

The panel will provide recommendations to the Government of Canada by October 2011

Go here.
www.rdreview-examenrd.ca

May 2011 recommendations

Here are May's reading recommendations.


S&T Strategies of Six Countries: Implications for the United States

National Academies Press
The U.S. will need to shift from a national S&T strategy predicated on the 1950s paradigm of "control and isolation" to a global innovation environment focused on "engagement and partnerships," according to this report. S&T Strategies of Six Countries: Implications for the United States provides an overview of national science and technology strategies in Japan, Singapore, Brazil, China, India and Russia, and concludes that the U.S. should focus on improving its balance of "top-down" and "bottom-up" innovation. The report also suggests that the U.S. should improve its global exchanges in education and R&D talent, international and national recruitment of R&D talent, and multinational corporate collaborations.

The Action Plan: 10 Steps to Boost Productivity, Create Jobs and Raise Canadian Incomes

Innovation: Coalition for Action on Innovation in Canada
Canada has a lot going for it in today’s global economy. Its traditional resource base is in high demand. Its population is among the best educated in the world. Canadian communities are beacons of diversity, filled with global citizens. Its public finances are relatively strong. Its tax rates are increasingly attractive. Its markets are open. Canada's businesses are moving more confidently into a wider range of international markets. As a result, Canadians today enjoy an enviable standard of living and quality of life. But it cannot afford to be complacent. The country's future prosperity is threatened on three fronts: ....

 

Skills for Innovation and Research - OECD

"This book seeks to increase understanding of the links between skills and innovation. It explores the wide range of skills required, ranging from technical to "soft", and the ability to learn; it presents data and evidence on countries' stocks and flows of skills and the links between skill inputs and innovation outputs. Given the importance of meeting the demands of knowledge-based economic activity, the book investigates the issues of skill supply, education, workplace training and work organisation. It highlights the importance of enabling individuals to acquire appropriate skills and of optimising these at work."

 European Commission.
This slipped by me earlier this year but the EC is reviewing its innovation support. Comments are now closed but go here for more information.
http://ec.europa.eu/research/csfri/index_en.cfm

Humanity 'must do more with less,' UNEP warns

Humanity 'must do more with less,' panel warns

This is definitely worth reading.

http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Humanity+must+more+with+less+panel+warns/4777332/story.html

Download the report here:

http://www.unep.org/publications/contents/pub_details_search.asp?ID=6195

Deadliest cancers in research funding gap: report - CBC news

How do charities become 'popular' and which conditions are marketed best - and what relationship is there with actual risk.

This is helpful.

Deadliest cancers in research funding gap: report - Health - CBC News


One of the projects I am working on at the moment is to investigate the role of charities in the research system. But it isn't sexy. Nevertheless, medical charities now represent a significant level of research funding compared with government expenditure.

Fix the PhD system - Nature.

There is a very interesting set of articles in a recent issue of Nature

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v472/n7343/full/472259b.html

A must read. Even if you don't agree, it is a very though provoking set of articles. Personally, I lean towards agreeing the systems needs fixing. But what that looks like isn't clear.

Brian.

Canadian businesses need our social science PhDs

Recently from University Affairs Few academic supervisors ever advise their social science PhD students to seek employment in the private sector. It is time that changed. Canadian businesses need our social science PhDs And of course the only response to that is - of course. The Canadian economy is probably as dependent on the social sciences as it is the natural sciences - but that is seemingly a secret.

Innovation hitting a wall

Now here is an interesting idea. One that I have lots of sympathy with.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/has-innovation-hit-a-brick-wall/article1849830/

I don't necessarily agree with the punch line at the end of the article. Why if the limits are biological and physical would privatising services increase innovation. But I will have to read the article before I comment more.

About this blog

Like other major areas of public policy concern, science policy has come to be both a difficult topic of genuine challenges as well as one that is a political hot potato which is frequently reviewed. For a long time I have been interested in the rate of change (or at least review) and the direction of science policy in modern economies. If you are curious about my use of the word velocity you can read a recent article - October 2010 issue of the Academy of Management Review.

Governments of a conservative nature as well as those of a more Liberal or left leaning nature find a number of the basic principles of science policy - R&D support - particularly for business problematic while agreeing that the purpose of science and innovation policy is to promote the development of new products. Its the economy stupid. The social dimensions of science and society are barely recognised now.