Friday, January 30, 2015

Why LinkedIn Is the Most Powerful Marketing Tool of the 21st Century | Anfernee Chansamooth

Why LinkedIn Is the Most Powerful Marketing Tool of the 21st Century | Anfernee Chansamooth:

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Cent cinquante cours coupés à l'UQAM?

Cent cinquante cours coupés à l'UQAM?:

'via Blog this'

Monday, January 19, 2015

UOIT - Survey says partnering with universities benefits small and medium businesses

UOIT - Survey says partnering with universities benefits small and medium businesses:

'via Blog this'

Friday, January 16, 2015

PromptExpress : Appel spécial de projets en TIC

PromptExpress : Appel spécial de projets en TIC:

'via Blog this'

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Monday, January 12, 2015

Repères RSTI - Publications - Détail / Estimations des dépenses canadiennes au titre de recherche et développement au Canada, dans les provinces et les territoires (DIRD) - MEIE

Repères RSTI - Publications - Détail / Estimations des dépenses canadiennes au titre de recherche et développement au Canada, dans les provinces et les territoires (DIRD) - MEIE:

'via Blog this'

Friday, January 9, 2015

Creating a Transom and Side Lites for a Door | Chief Architect Knowledge Base

Creating a Transom and Side Lites for a Door | Chief Architect Knowledge Base:

'via Blog this'

Trust:Prefabricated Lyrics - LyricWikia - song lyrics, music lyrics

Trust:Prefabricated Lyrics - LyricWikia - song lyrics, music lyrics:

Spitting in the face of a purpose and then
Don't feel labor stupidity them
But I'm still talking, just me and myself
I'm a doll left on the shelf

TV and radio feeding orders
But I'm too busy looking over my shoulder
My coffin is people around me
Burning without care, my only enemy

Only enemy

I'm not upset by the way I am
To tell you the truth, I don't give a damn
The only answer is to lie
Act the fool and make you cry

Make you cry

Make you cry

You've got no time for the young
Faith without meaning, road to nowhere
Prefabricated lives is fairer to divorce
The fabric of energy, conditional slave

You've got no time for the young
Faith without meaning, road to nowhere
Prefabricated lives is fairer to divorce
The fabric of energy, conditional slave

Conditional slave
Conditional slave
Conditional slave

Thursday, January 8, 2015

Alternatives to Bell & Rogers | Support Spy

Alternatives to Bell & Rogers | Support Spy:

'via Blog this'

Where Are Canada’s PhDs Employed?

Where Are Canada’s PhDs Employed?:

Also :

http://us6.campaign-archive2.com/?u=adff35e3091cad1452f767ad5&id=a0839cc01e&e=a72c54508e

Conference Board finds most PhDs are employed outside of academia

The Conference Board of Canada has released new data that shed light on where Canadian PhD degree-holders are employed. The report notes that Canada has more than 200,000 people who hold PhDs, 50% more than in 2001. PhDs were found to have a lower unemployment rate (4.1%) than that of all Canadians (6.2%), as well as a higher labour force participation rate (89.3%) than the national rate of 80.3%. The data also show that while 40% of the country’s PhDs are employed in the PSE sector, just 18.6% of PhDs are employed as full-time professors. Three-fifths are engaged in careers outside of the academy, with 17% working in the natural and applied sciences; 11% in health-related occupations; and 11% in social, community, and government services and education other than PSE. This data shows that non-academic careers are the norm for PhDs; based on this fact, the Conference Board calls for better understanding and awareness of the value PhDs bring to non-academic roles. The report also says that more must be done to prepare PhD students and graduates for non-academic careers, an issue recently discussed by Catherine Maybrey on Academica’s Rethinking Higher Ed Forum. Conference Board Blog

BC releases labour market forecast for next 7 years

Academica Top Ten - Thurs Jan 8, 2015:

BC releases labour market forecast for next 7 years

British Columbia’s government has released a new report that predicts that there will be nearly 1 M job openings between now and 2022. Two-thirds of those openings are expected to be due to the retirement of baby boomers, with the remaining third attributed to economic growth. Four-fifths of the positions will require some form of PSE, and 44% of the jobs will be in skilled trades and technical occupations. The province also suggests that liquid natural gas development could add an additional 100,000 openings to the forecasted figure. The 3 occupation groups with the most expected openings over the next 7 years are projected to be sales and service occupations; business, finance, and administration occupations; and trades, transport, and equipment operators and related occupations. Most openings will occur in the Lower Mainland, while the Northeast, the North Coast and Nechako, and the Lower Mainland/Southwest regions are expected to see growth in demand for workers at rates above the provincial average of 1.2%. BC News Release | The Province | Full Report

'via Blog this'

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

What Founders and CEOs learned in 2014, part two

What Founders and CEOs learned in 2014, part two:

'via Blog this'

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Adult Discussions About Research Policy | HESA

Adult Discussions About Research Policy

Posted on January 6, 2015 by Alex Usher

Over the winter break, the Toronto Star published an editorial on research funding that deserves to be taken out to the woodshed and clobbered.

The editorial comes in two parts. The first is a reflection on whether or not the Harper government is a “caveman” or just “incompetent” when it comes to science. I suppose it’s progress that the Star gives two options, but frankly the Harper record on science isn’t hard to decode:

The Conservatives like “Big Science” and have funded it reasonably well.
They’re not crazy about pure inquiry-driven stuff the granting councils have traditionally done and have kept growth under inflation as a result (which isn’t great but is better than what has happened to some other areas of government funding).
They really hate government regulatory science especially when it comes to the environment and have approached it the way the Visigoths approached Rome (axes out, with an intention to cause damage).
By and large they’d prefer if scientists and business would work more closely together; after all, what’s state investment in research and development for if not to increase economic growth?

But that’s not the part of the article that needs a smack upside the head. Rather, it’s these statements:

Again and again, the Conservatives have diverted resources from basic research – science for no immediate purpose other than knowledge-gathering – to private-public partnerships aimed at immediate commercial gain.

And

…by abandoning basic research – science that no business would pay for – the government is scorching the very earth from which innovation grows.

OK, first of all: the idea that there is a sharp dividing line between “basic” and “applied” research is pure hornswoggle. They aren’t polar opposites; lots of research (including pretty much everything in medicine and engineering) is arguably both. Outside of astronomy/cosmology, very little modern science is for no purpose other than knowledge gathering. There is almost always some thought of use or purpose. Go read Pasteur’s Quadrant.

Second, while the government is certainly making much of its new money conditional on business participation, the government hasn’t “abandoned” basic research. The billions going into the granting councils are still there.

Third, the idea that innovation and economic growth are driven solely or even mainly by domestic basic research expenditures is simply a fantasy. A number of economists have shown a connection between economic growth and national levels of research and development; no one (so far as I know) has ever proven it about basic research alone.

There’s a good reason for that: while basic research is the wellspring of innovation (and it’s important that someone does basic research), in open economies it’s not in the least clear that every country has to engage in it to the same degree. The Asian tigers, for instance, emphasized “development” for decades before they started putting money into what we would consider serious basic research facilities. And nearly all the technology Canadian industry relies on is American, and would be so even if we tripled our research budgets.

We know almost nothing about the “optimal” mix of R&D, but it stands to reason that the mix is going to be different in different industries based on how close to the technological frontier each industry is in a given country. The idea that there is a single optimal mix across all times and places is simply untenable.

Cartoonishly simple arguments like the Star’s, which imply that any shift away from “basic” research is inherently wrong, aren’t just a waste of time; the “basic = good, applied = bad” line of argument actively infantilizes the Canadian policy debate. It’s long past time this policy discussion grew up.

This entry was posted in funding, research. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Adult Discussions About Research Policy

Jim Woodgett says:
January 6, 2015 at 11:14 am
The Toronto Star OP-ED was unnecessarily biased (click-bait) but there are several elements of truth in it, at least as perceived by this science guy. Firstly, of course there is no perfect balance of basic vs applied but, in many areas of science, if you have no basic research then you must rely on second-hand access (often delayed) to apply it. This may work for a while in an area where there are other advantages (minimal IP environment, low wages and political support to build an indigenous industry) but usually this approach is unable to maintain competitiveness without discovery and direct internal access to new materials, processes, etc. Canada is poorly placed in this respect, especially as it has invested in the infrastructure to allow it to compete well in discovery research thanks to relatively strong universities and research institutes. Should more government dollars be invested in applied research? I would actually say yes, but only if it is not at the direct expense of basic science:
1. Canada’s private sector capacity and willingness to co-invest in many areas (excepting resource extraction/enrichment) is very limited. This is particularly true in the biopharma sector but also several others. There are some provincial programs that have worked well (e.g. Ontario Research Fund – requires a one third private sector match) but they rely on matching the best science with the best partners as adjudication is on both quality and potential for economic benefit. The latter tends to be self-limiting.
2. The current evaluation criteria for any of Canada’s science funding agencies (tri-councils, CFI, Genome Canada, etc) ALL require evidence of socio-economic benefit. That is a review and funding requisite. As a consequence, much lip-service/exaggeration/over-promising takes place and clearly some forms of research are deprecated. As has been repeatedly stressed by others, such criteria would have prevented the birth of biotech, monoclonal antibodies, etc as the most impactful discoveries initially have no immediate application. These criteria aren’t all due to the current government since Genome Canada and CFI have had these requisites since their inception (2000). However, they’ve since spread throughout the entire funding system. This, I think, has lead to the perception that the government is pushing far more toward applied research at the expense of fundamental/discovery research (see anecdote below).
3. Science is very difficult to evaluate, especially basic science. No metrics come close to predicting success (aside from track record but that requires selection bias – who knows how many budding geniuses have been cut down in their prime?). Applied research is presumably easier to evaluate although there are few, if any, reports on whether the shift in balance of funding has had any material effect. This dearth of evidence either way for applied research seems odd to me and is not a good sign for a government trying to make fundamental changes. Maybe it is too soon but, in that case, by the time there is evidence it may be too late to mitigate the consequences of negative impact.
4. Basic science is cheap. The more applied the research, the more expensive and higher the risk (clinical trials, production pilots, big cohorts, facilities, etc). This is one reason biologists use tractable organisms like worms and flies – they can get more done, faster, cheaper. Even mouse models are expensive. There needs to be strong justification for additional orders of magnitude of investment as well as satisfaction of safety and ethical concerns before moving forward. CIHR supports only a handful of clinical trials. If it only doubled the number, it would have to substantially reduce the number of basic science grants. This is true of other areas of research. So, if the government is keen on shifting the balance towards applied, it needs to invest much more (unless it is willing to substantially reduce support of basic science). The relative ROI very likely doesn’t warrant this (as seemingly understood by every other OECD country).
5. Let someone else do basic science, we can just import their data and build on it. Aside from it being an abdication of global responsibility, this is entirely wrong-headed. We generate preciously little IP as it stands. If we do not create knowledge, we are not going to be able to make use of it (except in “soft” terms such as best practice). Substantive new industries will not spring from relying on second-hand knowledge (never mind the vacuum created in education, HQP, etc).
6. We know enough, we just need to translate/apply what we know. This is a frequent cry from those typically moving towards the end of their career (including eminent scientists). This is hogwash as directly evidenced by embarrassing massive failure rate (and cost) of clinical trials. Research is a continual pipeline that needs constant feeding of new knowledge or it will dry up. Our ignorance is the only unlimited resource we can depend upon.
The problem is not a lack of entrepreneurial spirit or lack of desire of “basic” scientists to translate their research. The problem is that this cannot and should not be forced. Moreover, there is a dearth of capacity to receive/support such translation, a discouraging level of enthusiasm from the Canadian private sector and no money to achieve it. Perhaps reforming the SR&ED credit system would free up opportunities for better incentives for industry to support research. But right now, we are building a bridge over a horizon using the spans that connect us to ground.
Science is about building compelling evidence to support action. Perhaps the lack of evidence or rationale that the changes in research balance will be effective is why many Canadian scientists are so skeptical of government?
Anecdote: a highly respected fruit fly scientist told me yesterday that multiple CIHR Foundation Stage 1 reviewers instructed her to include clear translation to human relevance in her Stage 2 application if she wanted to be funded, even though her expertise is in flies and the work is at a stage that can only and should only be done in flies.
Reply

Programme emploi jeunesse - Conseil national de recherches Canada

Programme emploi jeunesse - Conseil national de recherches Canada:

'via Blog this'

Adult Discussions About Research Policy

Having trouble viewing this email?Click here

ONE THOUGHT TO START YOUR DAY

Adult Discussions About Research Policy

January 4, 2015, Alex Usher

Over the winter break, the Toronto Star published an editorial on research funding that deserves to be taken out to the woodshed and clobbered.

The editorial comes in two parts. The first is a reflection on whether or not the Harper government is a "caveman" or just "incompetent" when it comes to science. I suppose it's progress that the Star gives two options, but frankly the Harper record on science isn't hard to decode:

The Conservatives like "Big Science" and have funded it reasonably well.
They're not crazy about the pure inquiry-driven stuff the granting councils have traditionally done and have kept growth under inflation as a result (which isn't great but is better than what has happened to some other areas of government funding).
They really hate government regulatory science especially when it comes to the environment and have approached it the way the Visigoths approached Rome (axes out, with an intention to cause damage).
By and large they'd prefer if scientists and businesses would work more closely together; after all, what's state investment in research and development for if not to increase economic growth?

But that's not the part of the article that needs a smack upside the head. Rather, it's these statements:

Again and again, the Conservatives have diverted resources from basic research - science for no immediate purpose other than knowledge-gathering - to private-public partnerships aimed at immediate commercial gain.

And

...by abandoning basic research - science that no business would pay for - the government is scorching the very earth from which innovation grows.

OK, first of all: the idea that there is a sharp dividing line between "basic" and "applied" research is pure hornswoggle. They aren't polar opposites; lots of research (including pretty much everything in medicine and engineering) is arguably both. Outside of astronomy/cosmology, very little modern science is for no purpose other than knowledge gathering. There is almost always some thought of use or purpose. Go read Pasteur's Quadrant.

Second, while the government is certainly making much of its new money conditional on business participation, the government hasn't "abandoned" basic research. The billions going into the granting councils are still there.

Third, the idea that innovation and economic growth are driven solely by domestic basic research expenditures is simply a fantasy. A number of economists have shown a connection between economic growth and national levels of research and development; no one (as far as I know) has ever proven it about basic research alone.

There's a good reason for that: while basic research is the wellspring of innovation (and it's important that someone does basic research), in open economies it's not in the least clear that every country has to engage in it to the same degree. The Asian tigers, for instance, emphasized "development" for decades before they started putting money into what we would consider serious basic research facilities. And nearly all of the technology that the Canadian industry relies on is American, and would be so even if we tripled our research budgets.

We know almost nothing about the "optimal" mix of R&D, but it stands to reason that the mix is going to be different in different industries based on how close to the technological frontier each industry is in a given country. The idea that there is a single optimal mix across all times and places is simply untenable.

Cartoonishly simple arguments like the Star's, which imply that any shift away from "basic" research is inherently wrong, aren't just a waste of time; the "basic = good, applied = bad" line of argument actively infantilizes the Canadian policy debate. It's long past time this policy discussion grew up.

Like One Thought to Start Your Day? Participate in the conversation - you can comment on each of our One Thoughts on our blog: higheredstrategy.com/blog.

Feel free to share our One Thought with colleagues or invite them to join our mailing list by clicking here or by sending us an email.

www.higheredstrategy.com

info@higheredstrategy.com

Forward this email
This email was sent to jpvalois@mitacs.ca by info@higheredstrategy.com \| Update Profile/Email Address \| Rapid removal with SafeUnsubscribe™ \| Privacy Policy.

Higher Education Strategy Associates \| 639 Queen St. West, Suite 402 \| Toronto \| Ontario \| M5V 2B7 \| Canada

Friday, January 30, 2015

Wednesday, January 28, 2015

Monday, January 26, 2015

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Monday, January 19, 2015

Friday, January 16, 2015

Thursday, January 15, 2015

Monday, January 12, 2015

Friday, January 9, 2015

Thursday, January 8, 2015

Conference Board finds most PhDs are employed outside of academia

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Tuesday, January 6, 2015

Adult Discussions About Research Policy

One Response to Adult Discussions About Research Policy

ONE THOUGHT TO START YOUR DAY

Adult Discussions About Research Policy

Monday, January 5, 2015