Centre for Internet and Society

Exposing Data: Art Slash Activism

praskrishna — 2011-12-29T13:31:12Z

Tactical Tech and the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS) organised a public discussion on the intersection of Art and Activism at the CIS office in Bangalore on 28 November 2011. Videos of the event are now online. Ward Smith (Lecturer, University of California, LA), Stephanie Hankey and Marek Tuszinsky (Co-founders, Tactical Technology Collective), Ayisha Abraham (Film maker, Srishti School of Art Design) and Zainab Bawa (Research Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society) spoke in this event.

In the information societies that we live in, data is the new currency. While data – objective enumerations of life – has been around as the basis of providing evidence in research, practice and art, there is a renewed attention on data as the digital technologies start mediating our everyday lives. Digitization (like electronification in earlier times) is a process by which messy, chaotic, everyday life can be sorted, classified, arranged and built into clean taxonomies that flatten the experiential and privilege the objective. In many ways, the process of ubiquitous digitization goes back to the Cartesian dualism of the immaterial mind over the emergent materiality of the body. Historically, different disciplines and practices within the social and natural sciences, humanities, arts, development work, and governmentality, etc. have established protocols to create robust, rigorous, efficient and reliable data that can be used as evidence for thought and action. These protocols are not permanent and are often questioned within the disciplinary framework but especially with interdisciplinary dialogues where conflicting methodologies and reading practices often render the same data sets unintelligible to each other.

With the rise of the digital, these disciplines and practices start new negotiations with the world of databases, networks and archives. There is a growing anxiety that data, which was supposed to be an objective representation of reality, is increasingly becoming opaque in how it is structured. There is also an increasing awareness that the work that we make the —‘idea of data’— is not transparent. The Exposing Data Project came as a response to these anxieties, as we seek to unpack the processes, methodologies, challenges and implications of living in a data-rich, data-based world mediated by digital and internet technologies through a cross-disciplinary multi-sectoral dialogue.

Exposing Data is a curated practice of bringing together differently located researchers, academics, practitioners, policy actors, artists and public interlocutors to tease out the tensions and conflicts that digital data brings to their own practice and thought, especially when talking to people who are ‘not like us’.

For its first conversation titled ‘Art Slash Activism’, we decided to look at the tensions that often split communities and practices across historically drawn battle lines. There has been a huge tension between artists and activists, who, even though they often use same kind of data sets, are often at logger-heads when it comes to using that data for their practice. Artists, especially those dealing with public and community art projects, often work in the same spaces and communities as the activists, in making strong political statements and working towards a progressive liberal ideology. Activism has depended on artistic expressions – especially those around free speech, censorship, surveillance, human rights, etc. – in order to not only find peer support but also to oppose authoritarian forces that often seek to quell artistic voices. And yet, within the larger communities, the idea of political art – art that makes direct political statements – or activism as an art form – activism that takes the form of cultural production and overt subversion – often emerges as problematic. ‘Art Slash Activism’ brought together four people, identified (reluctantly, because they wear so many different hats) as an academic, as a researcher, as an activist and as an artist, who all straddle these chasms in their own work, to unpack the tensions through the lens of digital data.

Zainab Bawa, who is a research fellow at the Centre for Internet and Society, working on a monograph that deals with politics of transparency in Indian e-governance systems, set out the terms of the debate as she questioned the very meaning of the word ‘data’. Zainab, by looking at case-studies of land-record digitization in the country, started to look at how the word ‘data’, despite its apparent transparency and objectivity, is actually an opaque concept that eclipsed the politics of data formation – what gets identified as data? What gets discarded as noise? Who gets to identify something as data? What happens to things which are not data? What happens to people who cannot be identified through data? What are the systems of rationality that we inherit to talk of data?

Video of Zainab Bawa Talk

These questions persisted through the different conversations but were brought into plain site when Ayisha Abraham, a film and video artist who also teaches at the Sristhi School of Art Design, showed us a digitally restored piece of an old film that disintegrated even as it was being saved. Heidegger in his Basic Writings had proposed that “Art assumes that the truth that discloses itself in the work can never be derived from outside.” Ayisha built on this idea to look at material historicity and physical presence of data to question the easy availability of data that has been established for data in art practices. When does data come into being? What precedes data? What happens to data when it decays beyond belief? How do we restructure reality in the absence of data? She mapped the role of affective restructuring, historical reconstruction and creative fictions in our everyday life when we deal with realities which cannot be supported by data.

Video of Ayisha Abraham Talk

Ward Smith added a layer of complication in his questioning of the established cause-effect relationship that data has with Reality. Within activism as well as in development and policy work, there is an imagination that data always followed reality – that it is a distilled set of abstractions based on experiences, information, knowledge, analyses, etc. However, Ward presented us with a case-study that shows that data is not benign. It doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Often, the creation of data sets and databases leads to construction of alternative and new material realities. Even within existing realities, the introduction of a data set or an attempt to account for the reality using data, produces new and evolved forms of reality. Drawing partly from the discussions within digital taxanomies and partly from conversations in quantum philosophy (remember Schrodinger’s Cat?) Ward showed how data realities need to be unpacked to reveal what lies underneath.

Video of Ward Smith Talk

Marek Tuszinsky rounded up the conversations by introducing us to different ways of looking at data. Drawing from a rich ethnographic and experience data set at the Tactical Technology Collective, Marek questioned how our relationships and reading practices – looking at data side-ways, for example – influences the shape, form, structure and meaning of the data under consideration. What came up was a compendium questions around data ethics, data values, our own strategies and reflectivity in dealing with a data-mediated and data-informed world. What are the kinds of imperatives that lead us to produce data? What methodologies do we deploy to render data intelligible? What kind of data manipulations do we engage in, in order to make it comprehensible to digital systems of archives and storage?

Video of Marek Tuzinsky Talk

What are the politics of exclusion, inclusion and making invisible of data sets?

The conversation further opened up to the other participants in the conversation to crystalise around three areas of concern:

Data Decay

An audience member pointed out that one is always confronted with the physical decay of data. While old film is an incredibly fragile medium, it has survived over 70 years to become a part of Ayisha’s work. A digital format, on the other hand, would likely become inaccessible within six years due to format changes and problems with compatibility. The discussion shifted to the temporary aspect of data. The digitization of data allows one to illuminate it in significant ways by adding new components and blowing up details of focus. Such options are not available in analogue form.

However, the fact that digital media has a limited lifespan is something that one must consider. Are we depicting data for immediate attention and action, or for future reference? How far down the timeline of history do we want our records to stretch? Regardless of whether the producers of the film that turned out to be a hidden treasure for Ayisha asked these questions, the persistence of the film 70 years later served to illuminate an important moment in history and spoke of lives and stories the knowledge of which is still of interest and inspiration in our time. The future accessibility of data can be seen as our legacy and the inheritance of the generations to come.

Data Realities / Subjects

At the same time, can we be sure of the factual nature of recovered and existing data? It is important to ask who commissioned the source of information, who collected the data, who depicted and disseminated it? When asking “who”, one should also ask what their motives were, what resources they had and what settings they were working in. These are only several factors that influence the accuracy, message and understanding of the presented data.

Data has political power, being used as a catalyst and a justifying factor for various policies and interventions. However, data that is collected and presented by policy makers, research organizations, NGO’s, and other institutions may not reflect the realities as they are experienced by the population represented by the data. Researchers may be asking the wrong questions, or seeking answers in the wrong places, as it was the case in the Atlanta homeless programs discussed in Ward’s presentation. Inaccurate or incomplete data can confuse cause and effect, as well as become the cause in and of itself by feeding into stereotypes and creating faulty convictions that shape conventional views and social action.

Data Values

The importance of deconstructing the nature of how data is presented was remarked on by an audience member. The question posed was how, in the process of data collection and presentation, one can make data more reflective of reality as it is experienced by the studied population through incorporating grassroots efforts to create a community-based ownership of data.

To tackle this question, Marek brought up the example of mapping out the Kibera slum in Kenya. An open source approach was used in the project, where locals actively participated in the process of mapping. However, as Marek pointed out, it was still an intervention from outside the community. Somebody funded the project, someone gave the equipment, and they followed a certain methodology for reasons of their own. A completely unbiased and neutral representation of the slum was not possible due to the various agendas and perspectives of the parties involved, the dominant agenda being that of the project funders. Complete objectivity, even when efforts are made, is impossible.

Is it really more data that we need then? Even though information exists, it may not be accurate and not everyone within the society has an equal reach to it. A worker from a village lacking in literacy skills has significantly less access to data than a PHD student from a renowned university, even though they both navigate within the same system. Access to data stems farther than what is put up on a website or a file that can be picked up from a government office. More important than having access to open data, Zainab believes that one should look for relationships and systems where there is responsiveness and responsibility of negotiating.

However, what came clear from the discussion is that there are existent infrastructures that enable researchers and activists in their quest for information and its fair representation. People, in their interactions with each other, in the institutions and ad hoc organizations we develop, take part in creating these enabling infrastructures. Being embedded in the system within which one is collecting information allows one to understand and manoeuvre the necessary avenues. Questions of data collection, representation, and dissemination are multidisciplinary, spanning across issues that touch all members of our society. From land property records, old abandoned film, government statistics, classifications, and artists’ quest for truth, data takes many forms and defines our lives in ways we cannot always control. Through revaluation and questioning of these processes we gain a better understanding of what shapes societal views, government action, and how we can take control and use data to illuminate the unseen and wheel social change.

This has been the first of our experiments at creating dialogues around Exposing Data. We invite people interested in these questions, to not only participate in the future conversations, but also help us draw upon different disciplines, questions and concerns around the subject of Data. The next conversation seeks to address the question of “Whose data is it anyway?” and we hope that the momentum of talk carries on.

Nishant Shah
Maya Ganesh
Yelena Gulkhandanyan

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/art-slash-activism

Internet and Society in Asia: Challenges and Next Steps

nishant — 2011-12-23T05:56:15Z

The ubiquitous presence of internet technologies, in our age of digital revolution, has demanded the attention of various disciplines of study and movements for change around the globe. As more of our environment gets connected to the circuits of the World Wide Web, we witness a significant transformation in the way we understand the politics, mechanics and aesthetics of the world we live in, says Nishant Shah in this peer reviewed essay published in Inter-Asia Cultural Studies, Volume 11, Number 1, March 2010.

Traces of digital environments and internet technologies are all around us – we can see them in the rise of Digital Natives who are increasingly experiencing and living their lives mediated by digital technologies; we can see them in new forms of social interactions, such as blogs, peer-to-peer networks, internet relay chat, podcasts and so on, which are progressively becoming the primary points of information dissemination and production; we experience them in the tools and techniques of political mobilisation in large scale democratic elections and also in sub-cultural and smaller phenomena, such as flash-mobs and viral networking; we are incessantly reminded of them in the discourse around questions of safety and danger, especially with reference to activities such as internet pornography, child sexual abuse, piracy, identity theft, etc.

Internet technologies have become so intricately entwined with our daily practices and experiences that it is necessary to seriously look at these technologised circuits and the technology mediated identities thus produced. Increasingly, we see many different disciplines extending their methodologies and perspectives to include cyberspaces and digital behaviour in their purview. We already have a new breed of cyber-psychologists who are looking at the interaction between the human mind, the sense of the self and digital environments. The law, perhaps most concerned with questions of property, trade and commerce, is also examining questions of what it means to be human, with the emergence of post-human categories like cyborgs, cybrids, and genetically modified life forms. Anthropologists and sociologists have discovered cyberspace as a site that significantly influences the behaviour and thought of individuals as well as communities that come into being in the digital deliriums of the networked world. Feminism and Gender and Sexuality Studies have found great theoretical and political interest in the ways in which the internet technologies change the way we understand our bodies and practices. New disciplines like Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Cybernetiques, Cyborg Studies, etc. are slowly garnering importance and evolving as the spread of digital technologies increases exponentially. Cybercultures, a discipline (or perhaps, rather, a combination of various disciplines interested in studying cyberspaces) that comes into being because of the rise of Internet Technologies, is now already institutionalised in many universities and research spaces, concentrating on understanding the complex forms of interaction, representation and negotiation that happen in the fluid and rapidly changing landscape of digital cyberspaces.

As Internet Technologies continue to grow and become a more integral part of our lifestyles, cultural production, and forms of social transformation and political mobilisation, there are a few challenges that we face, especially when writing from and about Asia.

Following the trajectory of the development and spread of internet technologies, academic attention and research has primarily emerged in the North-West and slowly penetrated through disciplines and contexts in other parts of the world. It was only after the 1990s, once the digital revolution reached the ‘rest of the world’, that interest in and research on the phenomenon started to feature in studies in Asia. However, the initial research on and the major interest in the relationship between internet technologies and society has been dependent upon the theoretical categories, examples or ideas produced in primarily Western contexts. This has led to the production of a narrative where the digital technologies of information and communication (like the internet) are looked at as being seamlessly exported from the West to the East, without any attention given to the geo-political contexts and socio-cultural changes that accompany this penetration of technologies. There has been a blindsiding of the role that the State, educational institutions and globalised economic powers have played in the introduction, the proliferation and the acceptance of the internet technologies and digitally mediated lifestyles that have become so commonplace in developing Asia today. Research is oblivious to the context within which these technologies emerge and the kind of negotiations and interactions they have with the larger social and cultural fabric of the region.

One of the main reasons why such a narrative gains currency is that we have no vocabulary but that granted by Western scholars and practitioners to talk of the technologies and the technologised socio-cultural productions that emerge in our own local and regional contexts. With the rhetoric of globalisation and homogenisation on the one hand and the logic of the universalising nature of internet technologies on the other, there has been an un-reflexive theorising of digital identities, productions and interactions; this makes Asia more an exemplar for the existing Western ideas and hypotheses than a site where the drama of these technologies is still unfolding. This process is aided and abetted by the accelerated urbanisation that seeks to create nondescript and sterile spaces of consumption and lifestyle that subscribe to the idea of ‘Global’ or ‘Mega’ cities. Hence, across Asia, we see the mushrooming of cities and city-states – Singapore, Tokyo, Shanghai, Taipei, Bangalore – that work at actively erasing histories and producing these bubbles of consumption and globalisation that are disturbingly similar to each other.

Such theorising also reinforces the disconnect that Western Cybercultures has been encouraging between the networked worlds and ‘reality’, which, though affected and changed by the rise of these technologies, still remains strangely continuous and coherent in the midst of transformations. Moreover, it contains most theoretical and political interventions within the zones of urban consumption and change, thus producing a certain middle-class, self-referential work that concentrates on these areas, forgetting other crises and problems that still need attention. It also encourages a view of Asia as a docile, non-agential site upon which technologies are mapped, despite the fact that every year in this new century has seen Asian countries emerging as substantial stake-holders and players in production, proliferation and consumption of internet technologies. Along with the liberalisation of markets, the global digital revolution has also seen boundaries in social norms, cultural mores and political processes being pushed. We have been witness to formerly closed governments attempting to restructure themselves in the global world and to an unprecedented inflation and consumption in the developing Asian countries. We are in the middle of radical reconstruction of academic processes and market economies as public private partnerships become the norm. However, these landmark changes are often ignored or explored from a West-centric view-point, producing extreme and polarised reactions to the spread of Internet Technologies and the changes it entails.

Beyond Euphoria and Fear

Most responses to the widespread reach of internet technologies and digital forms have been grounded in euphoria or fear. There is a certain boundless celebration on the one hand, that proclaims the internet as forming the new public sphere, heralding the democratic potential and transparent structures that these networks have within them. The gurus have looked upon the internet in a ‘convergence theory’ mode where they announce, severally and variously, the death of earlier cultural productions like books, movies and music. The ability of digital technologies to aid innovation and creativity, as well as new forms of employment and entrepreneurship, has spurred the writing of many books and essays documenting the process. The roles that internet technologies have played in granting voice, visibility, and expression to many underprivileged communities, and the way they offer social and economic mobility in developing countries, have been unabashedly celebrated. Governments, civil society practitioners and theoreticians have all looked upon the internet as the panacea that will help level the landscape of social justice and political participation around the world.

Simultaneously, there has also been a construction of ‘ecology of fear’ around the rise and spread of internet technologies. Massive global alarm exists around questions of easy access to pornography and other sexual behaviours online, not only for young adults but also for mature audiences of potential behaviour addicts. Online gambling has emerged as a huge concern and has been at the centre of much debate. Cyber-bullying on social networking systems, and cyber-terrorism on a much larger scale, have shocked us as new technologies get implicated in actions that have disastrous results both at the individual and the community level. With the tightening Intellectual Property regimes, there has also been great debate around digital piracy and the ability of the internet peer-to-peer networks to encourage acts of theft and copyright infringement. As the world becomes more digitised, attacks on sensitive information by crackers and scammers are also on the increase in various forms. The internet has been looked at with growing concern and alarm by parents, educators, policy-makers and corporate entities, who are all deeply involved in assuring safety, creating opportunities and catering to the needs of citizens and consumers.

This simultaneously celebratory and pathologised approach often cripples research in the field of Internet and Society, because it constructs technology mediated practices and identities as at once universal (hence general) and unique (hence particular). Research that emerges is, consequently, confined to producing case-studies explaining what happens in each particular incident online and is unable to examine either the conditions within which the technologies emerge or the contexts that circumscribe certain socio-cultural behaviour. Such research, instead of examining the aesthetics and politics of technology mediated identities and practices, keeps on documenting the extremely fluid and rapidly changing landscape of the digital world – documenting fads, evolutions, innovations and the smaller changes therein – thus missing the forest for the leaf; the research ends up in concentrating on the ‘what happened’ rather than treating these happenings as symptomatic of larger paradigmatic changes that they often hint at.

Internet and the Convergence Theory

This is further complicated by the fact that many theorists and analysts seem to treat the internet more as a platform for convergence of old media forms in new digital packages. Such a view of internet technologies and digital cyberspaces leads to the populist descriptions of blogs as extensions of personal diaries, of digital cinema as a continuation of the celluloid image, of digitally morphed pictures as more sophisticated versions of earlier experiments with still images, of social networking systems as evolution of pre-existing social structures, of MMORPGs (Massive Multiple Online Role Playing Games) as merely complex forms of gaming. These descriptions fail to take into account that internet technologies, especially digital cyberspaces, while indeed affecting and transforming existing forms of media and cultural production, also lead to the emergence of new and interesting forms of expression, consumption and interaction.

Just as the field of Cybercultures has only a vocabulary granted by the West, it also lacks a vocabulary that is its own – most research in Cybercultures, especially in emerging information societies, relies on categories, concepts and ideas that were relevant for earlier popular cultural forms like books and movies. Transplanting categories of authorship, production, consumption, distribution, etc., and trying to map them onto the digital world leads to severe confusion and is a futile exercise. For example, if we look at the discourse around the online user generated encyclopaedia – Wikipedia - and use the earlier existing categories of an author, a reader, an editor and an institutional structure of producing knowledge, we immediately realise that the discussion cannot be sustained; the categories presuppose other forms of writing and production which are not as relevant in the digital worlds. Similarly, legal categories like possession, ownership, labour and copying are also being made redundant by the advent of the internet. As these categories fail to capture the new digital worlds, they also fail to explain the human-technology relationship that the field of Internet and Society seeks to explore. Despite investment in terms of efforts, time and money, much of the research becomes redundant because it does not have the vocabulary or the idea that analysis of these new digital spaces entails.

The imagination of the convergent multimedia internet distracts from the fact that what appear to be earlier historic forms like text and moving images are, in the context of cyberspace and the Web 2.0 revolution, actually new forms that need their own vocabulary that does not carry the baggage of earlier popular technologies. It is time to move away from talking about the Internet and its effects in analogies and to seek and create an independent and effective language that takes into account the mechanics and the potentials of the Internet revolution.

Institutional Spaces: Internet & Society

It is within such contexts and to address questions like these that institutional spaces emerge in the field of Internet and Society. As more and more disciplines start focusing on internet technologies and their intersections with areas as diverse as identity, sexuality, governance, cultural production, political mobilisation and social transformation, institutions in this space are faced with the daunting question of what to concentrate on and how to define the scope of their activities. Many global organisations and interventions narrowly define the field through their own disciplinary positions and perspectives. The Berkman Centre of Internet and Society at the Harvard Law School, for example, examines the law and its intersections with the new internet technologies and practices. Sarai - a new media organisation in India - concentrates on art and cultural production as affected by digital technologies and practices. The Association of Internet Researchers builds a network of multi-disciplinary researchers and practitioners across the globe to meet annually for workshops and conferences and also share ideas through a mailing list, concentrating on existing phenomena on the World Wide Web. Several Communications and Media Studies schools also have established labs and workshops that focus on the internet technologies from their disciplinary grounding.

The Centre for Internet and Society, a newly established research and advocacy centre founded in Bangalore, India, makes a shift from these discipline-bound approaches to Internet and Society, and inaugurates a multi-disciplinary, interactive space for theorists, researchers, students, practitioners, activists, artists and the larger public to initiate a dialogue in the field of Internet and Society. Rather than adopting a disciplinary framework, it takes the model of Asian Cultural Studies, seeking to produce a sustainable scholarship and methodology to talk of the relationship between emergent Internet technologies and the changes they produce in the Global South. It sets out to critically engage with concerns of digital pluralism, public accountability and new pedagogic practices through multidisciplinary research, intervention and collaboration, to understand and affect the shape and form of the internet and its relationship with the political, cultural, and social milieu of our times.

At CIS, we recognise the contexts within which this field has developed and emerged and have initiated many programmes, projects and structures to deal with the questions that this essay has charted. Drawing from the pedagogy and frameworks developed within Cultural Studies in Asia, the research at CIS investigates the local, the contextual, the emergent and the negotiated nature of digital spaces and internet technologies at three levels – At the national level, looking to produce models of research by examining the history, the politics, the growth and the significance of internet technologies in the context of globalised India; At the regional level, focusing on the similarities that global urbanisation and digitisation are bringing to the emerging information societies in Asia and the acknowledging the dissimilarities that need to be addressed in each of these societies; At the global level, engaging with a much larger South-South discourse that strengthens the move to approach internet technologies as integral to our ways of living rather than of foreign import. Such an approach allows us to escape the often restrictive constraints of cybercultures discourse that stays within the domains of internet technologies and produces disconnect between Internet and Society. Instead, we expand the scope of internet technologies to see their relationships with larger political, social and cultural economies, lifestyles and consumption patterns, and identity and transformation structures in the rapidly changing world. In the first two years, for example, we are investing a large part of our research energies into producing the Histories of the Internets in India – inviting different disciplines and standpoints to trace the diverse historically important and culturally significant growth of Internet Technologies in India, thus de-homogenising the internet as well as the discourse within cybercultures.

The policy and advocacy work at the Centre for Internet and Society, also contributes hugely to this localisation and narrativisation of the internet in India, by recognising the law and the State as the largest stakeholders in the growth and proliferation of these technologies. We have initiated campaigns and projects examining national laws regarding intellectual property rights regimes, piracy, e-commerce and security, accessibility and disability, to see how they are subject to modification with the growth of digital technologies. Original field work and ethnography with the consumers, practitioners, stakeholders and law enforcers about the nature of technology, its role in the larger imagination of the globalised Indian State, and the need to make sensitive and informed decisions, has already been initiated, along with dissemination platforms like workshops, seminars, meetings and conferences.

Keeping in tune with our model of collaboration and consultation, the Society Members have also helped us generate a healthy momentum by representing us and helping us find resources around the globe. Prof. Subbiah Arunachalam has been travelling across Asia, Europe and North America, at international policy and activist forums, promoting Open Access to information and knowledge. Lawrence Liang has been involved in teaching both at the local and international levels, apart from presenting original and influential research examining the relationship that internet technologies have with questions of knowledge production, ownership and the law. Achal Prabala has been actively working with the Wikimedia foundation to facilitate user participation in knowledge production online. Atul Ramachandran has been working on developing mobile internet platforms for sharing news and information within the underprivileged communities in India. Vibodh Parthsarthy has been designing academic courses and encouraging research in the fields of internet technologies, governance and democracy.

Because these questions have a much larger regional relevance – with the increasing description of Asia as the Mecca of piracy and digital infractions – we are also in the process of starting projects that do a survey of the laws around intellectual property rights, innovation and access in the Asian region, with Sunil Abraham (Director – Policy) guiding a team of in-house researchers and external collaborators. Cross-boundary research and analysis has also been initiated in terms of dialogues and comparative study of technology, space and globalisation, initiated by my seven month residential project in Shanghai, where we are examining the conditions of technologisation that make global spaces possible, in countries like China and India. Apart from these, the team of seven people has been making interventions in international workshops, conferences and forums, to start dialogues and discussions in the field of Internet and Society.

A significant effort has been spent in starting awareness for the public – from the first documentation on our website of work in progress by our research and policy collaborators to regular contributions to local media sources to organisation of public talks and events – which is aimed at demystifying the internet technologies and giving more ownership and assurance to a larger public. Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, gave a public talk on freedom, expression and the internet, citing anecdotes and examples from the phenomenal success and growth of Wikipedia. In a different media, independent film maker Jamie King screened his movies on the piracy cultures and innovation, in Bangalore, sparking conversations and debates about copyright, creative commons and the domain of cultural expression. Students and visiting artists from different countries, through the Shrishti School of Art Design and the efforts of Zeenath Hassan, came together at CIS for a discussion on fear and gender in public space and how digital technologies contribute to it. The discussion feels timely because only a month later, India saw the right wing cultural police tyrannising Bangalore and other parts of Karnataka, by perpetrating acts of brutal violence against women who they saw as progressive or in defiance of the right wing codes of decorum and behaviour. CIS was an active part of the ‘Pink Chaddi’ and ‘Reclaim the Night’ campaigneering, mobilising and participation at a local and national level, as a response to these acts of regressive violence, using digital environments and platforms to garner support and ‘recruit’ people into showing their protest against such fundamental ideas and practices.

Moreover, in order to develop and establish a more accessible vocabulary and understanding both within research, higher education and practice of internet and society questions, CIS has been investing in building national and regional networks of scholars, students and theorists in different disciplines to come and discuss the area. Courses have been designed and administered for undergraduate, post graduate and research students, in the disciplines of social sciences, management and media studies, journalism and communication studies, cultural studies etc. Networking with institutional and university spaces like the Centre for Culture, Media and Governance at the Jamia Millia Islamia in Delhi, Mudra Institute of Communications, Ahmedabad, Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, Bangalore, Christ University, Bangalore, Centre for Media and Culture Studies, at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences in Mumbai. We are also in conversation with regional spaces like the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the Shanghai University, The Open Source Initiative, International Development Research Centre, Hivos and the Asia Scholarship Foundation in Thailand, for extending our regional and global networks.

The Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore, is less than a year old and has already embarked upon so many different projects, found a wide range of collaborations, initiated diverse enquiries and has received the support and interest of a varied and credible list of organisations. This warm reception and enthused interest, is as much a sign of the evolving and dynamic nature of collaboration and consultation in Asia, as it is of the need for interdisciplinary spaces like The Centre for Internet and Society, in our times. We see our rapid progress as symptomatic of a much larger need to establish more institutional spaces that can cater to the widely expanding horizon of the field of Internet and Society. While it is indeed laudable that different disciplines have already started showing interest in studying and analysing these often invisible links between Internet and Society, it is also now time, to start looking at technology as more than just an object or platform of study. We can already see how, in the foreseeable future, the internet technologies are only going to become more ubiquitous and central to the crucial mechanics of survival and living. Spaces like CIS help us look at technologies like the internet, as not merely tools and techniques, but as entwined in the politics, aesthetics and economies of the time and spaces we live in.

About the Author

Nishant Shah is the co-founder and Director for Research at the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore. Nishant’s doctoral work examines the construction of technosocial subjectivities in India, at the intersections of digital technology, cyborg identities and globalised spaces. Nishant is the recipient of the Asia Scholarship Foundation’s grant which places him in Shanghai for a project on IT and the globalisation of Asian cities.

Read the original published by Inter-Asia Cultural Studies here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/internet-society-challenges-next-steps

The Digital Classroom: Social Justice and Pedagogy

nishant — 2015-05-08T12:36:29Z

What happens when we look at the classroom as a space of social justice? What are the ways in which students can be engaged in learning beyond rote memorisation? What innovative methods can be evolved to make students stakeholders in their learning process? These were some of the questions that were thrown up and discussed at the 2 day Faculty Training workshop for participant from colleges included in the Pathways to Higher Education programme, supported by Ford Foundation and collaboratively executed by the Higher Education Innovation and Research Application and the Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore.

The workshop focused on 3 chief challenges in contemporary pedagogy and teaching in higher education in India as identified by HEIRA: The need for innovative curricula, challenges to social justice in education, and possibilities offered by the intersection of digital and internet technologies with classroom teaching and evaluation. In the open discussions, the participating faculty members used their multidisciplinary skills and teaching experience to look at possibilities that we might implement in our classrooms to create a more inclusive and participatory environment. The conversations were varied, and through 3 blog entries I want to capture the focus points of the workshop. In this first post, I focus specifically on the changing nature of student engagement with education and innovative ways by which we can learn from the digital platforms of learning and knowledge production and implement certain innovations in pedagogy that might better help create inclusive and just learning environments in the undergraduate classroom in India.

Peer 2 Peer: One of the observations that was made unanimously by all the faculty members was that students respond better, learn faster, engage more deeply with their syllabus when the instructor has a personal rapport with them. Traditionally, the teachers who have established human contact which goes beyond the call of duty are also the teachers that have become catalysts and inspirations for the students. Especially with the digital aesthetics of non-hierarchical information interaction, this has become the call of the day.

Establishing the teacher as a peer within the classroom, rather than the fountainhead of information flow, is an experiment worth conducting. Like on other digital platforms, can we think of the classroom as a space where the interlocutors each bring their life experience and learning to start an information exchange and dialogue that would make them stakeholders in the process of learning? This would mean that the teacher would be a facilitator who builds conditions of knowledge production and dissemination, thus also changing his/her relationship with the idea of curriculum and teaching.

Reciprocal evaluation: It was pointed out that the grade oriented academic system often leads to students disengaging with innovative and meaningful learning practices. With the pressure of completing the curriculum, the students’ instrumental relationship with their classroom learning and the highly conservative structures of higher education that do not offer enough space to experiment with the teaching methods, it often becomes difficult to initiate innovative pedagogic practices. Learning from the differently hierarchised digital spaces, it was suggested that one of the ways by which this could be countered is by introducing reciprocal evaluation patterns which might not directly be associated with the grades but would recognise and appreciate the skills that students bring to their learning.

Inspired by the Badges contest at HASTAC, it was suggested that evaluation has to take into account, more than grades. Different students bring different skills, experiences, personalities and behaviours to bear upon the syllabus. They work individually and in clusters to understand and analyse the curriculum. Recognising these skills and the roles that they play in their learning environments is essential. Getting students to offer different badges to each other as well as to the teachers involved, helps them understand their own learning process and engages them in new ways of learning.

Role based learning: Within the Web 2.0 there is a peculiar condition where individuals are recognised simultaneously as experts and novices. They bring certain knowledges and experiences to the table which make them credible sources of information and analysis in those areas. At the same time, they are often beginner learners in certain other areas and they harness the power of the web to learn. Such a distributed imagination of a student as not equally proficient in all areas, but diversely equipped to deal with different disciplines is missing from our understanding of the higher education classroom.

We discussed the possibility of making the student responsible not only for his/her own learning but also the learning of the peers in the classroom. Making the student aware of what s/he is good at and where s/he is lacking allows them to gain confidence and also realise that everybody has differential strengths and aptitudes. Such a classroom might look different because the students don’t have to be pitched in stressful competition with each other but instead work collaboratively to learn, research and produce knowledge in a nurturing and supportive learning environment.

These initial discussions look at the possibility of innovative classroom teaching that can accommodate for the skills and differences of the students in higher education in India. The conversations opened up the idea that the classroom can be reshaped so that it becomes a more inclusive space where the quality of students’ access to education can be improved. It also ties in with the larger imagination of classrooms as spaces where principles of social justice can be invoked so that students who are disadvantaged in language, learning skills, socio-economic backgrounds, are not just looked at as either ‘beyond help’ or ‘victims of a system’. Instead, it encourages to look at the students as differential learners who need to be made stakeholders in their own processes of learning and education.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/pathways/facultyworkshop

About Us

pranesh — 2016-06-27T13:59:12Z

What we do

The Centre for Internet and Society is a non-profit research organisation that works on policy issues relating to freedom of expression, privacy, accessibility for persons with disabilities, access to knowledge and intellectual property rights, and openness (including open data, free/open source software, open standards, open access to scholarly literature, open educational resources, and open video), and engages in academic research on reconfigurations of social processes and structures through the Internet and digital media technologies, and vice versa.

Vision and Mission

The Centre for Internet and Society will critically engage with concerns of digital pluralism, public accountability and pedagogic practices, in the field of Internet and Society, with particular emphasis on South-South dialogues and exchange.

Through multidisciplinary research, intervention, and collaboration, we seek to explore, understand, and affect the shape and form of the internet, and its relationship with the political, cultural, and social milieu of our times.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/about/about-us

That’s the unkindest cut, Mr Sibal

sunil — 2011-12-12T04:59:00Z

There’s Kolaveri-di on the Internet over Kapil Sibal’s diktat to social media sites to prescreen users’ posts. That diktat goes far beyond the restrictions placed on our freedom of expression by the IT Act. But, says Sunil Abraham of the Centre for Internet and Society, India is not going to be silenced online.

Thanks to leaked reports about unpublicised meetings that communications minister Kapil Sibal had with social media operators – or Internet intermediaries, to use legalese — such as Facebook, Google and Indiatimes.com, censorship policy in India has gained public attention, and caused massive outrage.

According to The New York Times India Ink reportage, quoting unnamed sources from the Internet intermediaries, Mr Sibal demanded proactive and pre-emptive screening of posts that people make on social media sites, ostensibly to filter out or remove “offensive” content and hate speech. In a television interview, however, the minister denied he wanted to censor what Indians thought and shared with others online.

One is tempted to believe him. He was, after all, the amicus for the landmark People’s Union of Civil Liberties (PUCL) wiretapping judgment of 1996, which is pivotal to protecting our civil liberties when using communication technology in India.

Last week, though, Mr Sibal came out in public with his demands, saying that there was a lot of content that risked hurting the sensibilities of people and could lead to violence. “It was brought to my notice some of the images and content on platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Google are extremely offensive to the religious sentiments of people ...”We will not allow Indian sentiments and religious sentiments of large sections of the community to be hurt,” he said.

There was even a threat of state action if Internet companies did not comply with demands to screen content before it was posted online.

The NYT blogpost said, however, quoting executives from the Internet companies Mr Sibal had reportedly met, that the minister showed them a Facebook page that maligned Congress president Sonia Gandhi and told them, “This is unacceptable.”

Google responded to Mr Sibal by releasing its Transparency Report, saying that out of 358 items that it had been requested to remove between January and June 2011, only eight requests pertained to hate speech, while as many as 255 complaints were against “government criticism”.

Indian netizens raged against Mr Sibal, and very quickly #IdiotKapil Sibal was ‘trending’ on Twitter, with thousands posting comments against attempts to ‘censor’ Internet content. Much has changed, in Mr Sibal’s reckoning, between 1996 and 2011.

So, what’s all the fuss over ‘pre-screening’ and what’s at stake here? Critics of Mr Sibal say, our freedom of speech and expression is under threat. They see a pattern in the way the government has sought to impose rules and restrictions on Internet and telecommunications players, with demands on BlackBerry-maker RIM to give it access to its users’ email and messenger content, on telecom players to install electronic surveillance equipment and let the government eavesdrop as it sees fit, and on the likes of Google and Yahoo to part with email content and users’ details.

It all started with the amendments to the Information Tech-nology Act 2000 in 2008. Together, they constitute damaging consequences for citizens, including the creation of a multi-tier blanket surveillance regime, inappropriate security recommendations, and undermining freedom of speech and expression.

The amendments passed in 2008 — without any discussion in Parliament – did solve some existing policy concerns, but simultaneously introduced new ones. For instance, Section 66, introduced during this amendment, criminalises sending offensive messages through any ICT-based communication service.

Offensive messages are described as “grossly offensive, menacing character..... or causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, insult, injury, criminal intimidation, enmity, hatred or ill will.” These terms are not defined in the IT Act or in any other existing law, rules or case-law, except for a couple of exceptions such as what constitutes “criminal intimidation”. These limits on the freedom of expression go well beyond Article 19(2) of the Constitution, which only permits “reasonable restrictions...in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.”

If Mr Sibal himself were to don his lawyer’s coat again and launch a legal challenge to Section 66, in all likelihood, courts in India would strike it down as unconstitutional.

Section 79, which was amended, brought into being an intermediary liability regime. This was in part precipitated by the arrest of Avnish Bajaj, the former CEO of bazee.com in December 2004 for the infamous Delhi Public School MMS clip which was being sold on his e-commerce platform. Policy-makers were, however, convinced to follow international best practices and grant intermediaries immunity under certain conditions.

Just as the postal department is not considered liable for the content of letters or telecom operators liable for the content of phone conversations, Internet intermediaries, too, were to be considered “dumb pipes” or “common carriers” of content produced and distributed by users. Intermediaries therefore earned immunity from legal action so long as they acted upon take-down notices, or written requests for deletion of illegal content.

Section 79 was further clarified in April this year when the Intermediaries Guidelines Rules were notified. Stakeholders from the technology industry, media and civil society had sent feedback to the Department of Information Technology under the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology in February, but DIT choose to ignore the feedback and finalised rules with serious flaws in them. For one, a standardised “Terms of Service” that focused on limits on free expression had to be implemented by all intermediaries – forcing a one-size-fits-all approach.

Content that was 'harmful to minors' was not permissible regardless of the target market of the website. All intermediaries were supposed to act upon take-down notices within 36 hours, something that a Google may be able to do, but an average blogger could not.

Two, the vague terms introduced in Section 66A were left undefined. Intermediaries were asked to sit on judgment on the question of whether an article, image or video was causing 'inconvenience'.

Three, all principles of natural justice were ignored – the person responsible for posting the content would not be informed, s/he would not be given an opportunity to file a counter-notice to challenge the intermediary’s decision in court.

Four, the rules left it open for economically or politically motivated actors to seriously damage opponents online using fraudulent take-down notices, instead of treating abuse of the take-down notice system as an offence.

How the take-down system terrorises free expression on the Internet was illustrated when the Centre for Internet and Society, where this author works, undertook a research project. A pro-bono independent researcher who led the exercise sent fraudulent take-down notices to seven Internet companies in India. These included some of the largest and most popular Indian and foreign search engines, news portals and social media platforms.

Although they all employ the most competent lawyers in the country, six of the seven intermediaries over-complied, confirming our worst fears. In one case, a news portal deleted not just the specific comment that was mentioned in the take-down notice but 14 other comments as well. Most importantly, it must be pointed out, the comment identified in the take-down notice was itself an excellent piece of writing that could not be construed as “offensive” by any stretch!

In the single exception to the rule, one e-commerce portal refused to act upon a take-down notice trying to prevent the sale of diapers on the grounds that it was “harmful to minors”, rightly dismissing the notice as frivolous. But that exception simply proved a rule: Private intermediaries use their best lawyers to protect their commercial interests, but are highly risk-averse and do not value freedom of expression, unless it affects their bottomline.

Proactive and pre-emptive screening of social media content, as Mr Sibal has demanded, will only further compromise online civil liberties in what’s already a dismal situation. In short, we move from a post-facto to a pre-emptive censorship regime.

In fact, given the magnitude of the task of pre-screening in a nation with a 100 million Internet users and growing, such an intense censorship regime will mean not only that what Indian citizens say or post will be censored by private companies, but those private companies will, in turn, use machines to screen what humans are saying and doing! After all, otherwise, companies would require armies of human censors to screen the millions of posts that are made on Twitter and Facebook every minute.

But the Supreme Court has held that even the executive arm of government cannot engage in censorship prior to publication, let alone ordering private companies to do so. In any case, it’s a policy that’s bound to fail, for both technical reasons and for its failure to take into account human motivations.

Machines, as we know, continue to be poor judges of the nuances of human expression and will likely cause massive damage to the idea of public debate. Humans, on the other hand, will begin to circumvent machine filters – for example, content labelled as PRON instead of PORN will go through.

Draconian crackdown on certain types of fringe content is likely to have the counterproductive result of the general society developing an unhealthy obsession for exactly such content. Despite the comprehensive censorship controls in Saudi Arabia, for instance, pornography consumption is rampant, usually accessed via pirated satellite TV and circulated using personal computing devices and mobile phones.

But all is not lost yet, perhaps. Faced with the barrage of criticism, Mr Sibal has now called for public consultations on the issue of pre-screening content. There’s hope yet for freedom of speech and expression in India. Thanks to the Internet, a throwback to 1975 simply does not look possible.

Sunil Abraham is executive director of the Centre for Internet and Society, Bengaluru. He wrote this article in the Deccan Chronicle on December 11, 2011. Read the original here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/unkindest-cut-mr-sibal

Is the govt bid to regulate content on the Internet a good thing?

praskrishna — 2011-12-08T07:12:24Z

The recent move by Union Minister Kapil Sibal to engage leading Internet platform providers like Google, Facebook, etc in regulating content has seen netizens react in different manners. The question of freedom of expression vis-a-vis objectionable content has come to the fore. Pranesh Prakash who deals with such issues on a regular basis at the Centre for Internet and Society was answering questions (more like comments) live on CNN-IBN's chat feature on December 7, 2011.

Q: OK... then how about this... People report abuse against a page...and after some hits that report will go to the governmental organization, and they will decide on what action to take... this may include hiring of some IT services company to do that and gives more employment to people too. Anyways thanks for replying to my questions.

Asked by: Tilak Kamath

A: How about just approaching courts, who are in a far better position to judge what is legal and what is illegal under Indian law than any IT services company or government organization.

Q: Suppose a group of rabble rousers does indeed use a forum and become violent, (the group being identifiable) would the state have the right to ask the forum to be discontinued?

Asked by: Zeus

A: Of course (if what you meant is 'the right to ask the forum to remove the violence-inciting content'). Indeed, this is how ultra-left wing and ultra-right wing publications that advocate violence (which is an imminent threat) are proscribed in India. And the same laws already apply for online fora. But just as you wouldn't ban a newspaper like DNA for carrying an offensive article (such as the anti-Muslim screed written by Subramanian Swamy a few months back), and just as the postal service wouldn't be discontinued for carrying Maoist letters, a forum shouldn't be banned for offensive content. There is no need for a new 'self-regulation code', since the 'report abuse' links found on many of these sites are exactly that: self-regulation.

Q: Article 19(2) of our constitution places arbitrary and subjective restrictions on free speech - public order, decency, morality are all subjective, according to the whims and fancies of those who are in control. Aren't you concerned this is going down the exact path (ignoring that this is impractical to begin with)?

Asked by: Karunakaran

A: No, because there is a rich jurisprudence laid down by the Supreme Court of what is and what isn't a "reasonable restriction". While I do believe that our Constitution does go beyond what the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (to which India is a signatory) allows for, Article 19(2)'s interpretation by the Supreme Court and the High Courts have been very progressive for the most part.

Q: The government has a mandate to govern and keep the society in harmony and take care of law & order... If no check on the expressions of netizens the chances of a spark generating debate can escalate to violence given the extremism we see today. The media in print as well as electronic we know & see does it's CENSORING, calling it as editing and publishing only what it likes and wants.This style is for all including CNN-IBN.The difference is in media, the EDITOR gets responsible in case of offensive or blashphemous material gets published. Social network the responsibility seems missing. Freedom always needs to be enjoyed with discipline. How do you the minority indisciplined netizens, who are there and no denying on that ?

Asked by: sundar1950in

A: I believe that killing speech is not the right way to prevent violence. Indeed, a newspaper editor in the Maldives recently noted that they have had less violence committed against the newspaper office ever since they allowed for online comments. Speech often allows people to vent out violence instead of acting it out. Violence should be curbed by reining in those who're committing it, and those who're inciting it on the ground. At any rate, the laws that apply to inciting violence in print apply to the Web also, and no new rules need to be drafted.

Q: Thanks for the information on the report abuse button. but can't we have a Governmental agency regulating websites like FB or Google... they can't say no, cos India is a Huge market for such companies.. and why don't we find many ultra offensive posts about the U.S. or other countries, as we find for Indians..

Asked by: Tilak Kamath

A: That would be a very bad idea. Governments don't have a regulatory agency to dictate what letters post-offices shouldn't carry, nor what articles newspapers shouldn't publish. They should definitely not have a regulatory agency dictate what status updates Facebook or Google+ should and shouldn't carry. You don't find ultra-offensive posts about the U.S. because you aren't looking around. They're *everywhere*, even more so than those that bad-mouth India. Yet, such offensive speech is the price we have to pay (gladly, I should add) for democracy and the freedom of speech.

Q: The idea to ban any post on something that would lead to communal strike is fine however, I feel this is not the intention. The intention is clearly political and due to the Anna movement becoming popular thanks to the posts on the internet as also certain remarks on the Gandhi family in particular and Congress leaders specifically has led to this decision. Kapil Sibal is a smart alec and he knows that this can be used against any adverse comments against them.

Asked by: Arun

A: I am less suspicious of Mr. Sibal. I believe, especially after speaking with some senior lawyer friends of his, that he genuinely believes what he is doing to be required and legal and constitutional, and not for the appeasement of one or two Congress leaders. That, however, does not make his suggested solution correct. Multiple High Courts' decisions have held otherwise, and the Supreme Court's decision in Ajay Goswami v. Union of India also provides them support.

Q: One best possible thing is to advertise the Report Abuse button on the Internet, don't you think so? again there should be proper authentication to do so to avoid miscreants blocking some good pages unnecessarily.

Asked by: Tilak Kamath

A: I believe that the "Report Abuse" option available on most large social media and social network websites is useful, but it is also potentially dangerous since it allows a private party (such as Facebook or Google), rather than a court, to dictate what content is and isn't acceptable, to the possible detriment of larger society.

Q: Good evening sir, my question is that it is legal to pre-screen the private data of users by sites and to interfere between their privacy.

Asked by: Shrey Goswami

A: Whether this proposal by Shri Sibal necessarily involves an invasion of privacy is an open question, since the details of the proposal as as yet not fully sketched out. On Google Plus and Facebook, one can restrictedly share information. Will such restricted sharing also have to be pre-screened, or only information that is going to be available to all members of the public? The proposal still consists only of press articles and a press conference held by the Minister. Even assuming it only require pre-screening of information that is going to be publicly accessible, it imposes too high a burden on intermediaries, and is impractical. And, as you might be aware, only very limited pre-censorship is allowed in India, and such a general requirement of pre-censorship does not seem to be constitutional, in my opinion.

Q: Yes, we were browsing FB yesterday and some content in there, could not be opened in front of my children. So Content is not always good, and there must be some kind of screening. Again, the current trend in India, to think that whatever the government does is not at all a good one. Governing must be left to government and not to news channels/civil society, etc. This looks dangerous, and sad no one is realising this.

Asked by: Narayanan S

A: Perhaps I should allow former Supreme Court Justice Hidyatullah's words speak for themselves: "Our standards must be so framed that we are not reduced to a level where the protection of the least capable and the most depraved amongst us determines what the morally healthy cannot view or read." - Justice Hidyatullah in K.A. Abbas v. Union of India. In the Janhit Manch case, the Bombay High Court held: "By the present petition what the petition seeks is that this court which is a protector of free speech to the citizens of this country, should interfere and direct the respondents to make a coordinated and sustained effort to close down the websites as aforestated. Once Parliament in its wisdom has enacted a law and has provided for the punishment for breach of that law any citizen of this country including the Petitioner who is aggrieved against any action on the part of any other person which may amount to an offence has a right to approach the appropriate forum and lodge a complaint upon which the action can be taken if an offence is disclosed. Court in such matters, the guardians of the freedom of speech, and more so a constitutional court should not embark on an exercise to direct State Authorities to monitor websites. If such an exercise is done, then a party aggrieved, depending on the sensibilities of persons whose view may differ on what is morally degrading or prurient will be sitting in judgment, even before the aggrieved person can lead his evidence and a competent court decides the issue. The Legislature having enacted the law a person aggrieved may file a complaint."

Q: Kapil Sibal has not been able to give conviction to objectionable content as social unrest can't take place through web and it needs well oiled machinery and as far as using offensive language against politicians is concerned it won't be curtailed through web and it will require better self regulation among politicians rather than being irresponsible

Asked by: Rij

A: I agree completely.

Q: Do you feel that Government (Congress in particular ) is trying to impose restrictions on social media to stifle the peoples anger against the Government and its leaders due to various scams and corruption?

Asked by: Santosh

A: No. I am taking Mr. Sibal's words at face value, that what they are trying to prevent is hate speech, inciting speech. Still, the means of doing so are undemocratic, ignorant of how the Internet functions, and liable to have very harmful consequences on our polity.

Q: Are our laws going to be like those in gulf countries with respect to censorship? In the name of communal messages, is there a motive to censor something else?

Asked by: Gaurav

A: It doesn't matter what the 'ulterior motive' is, and I'm not sure there is one. The touchstone should should be that of our Constitution and Article 19(1)(a), which guarantees freedom of speech and expression with the Article 19(2) laying down the reasons for which reasonable restrictions can be laid down. And in many ways our laws are worse than those in Saudi Arabia. There at least when a website is blocked or content removed the public is notified when they try and access the content. In India, there is no such notification.

Q: Is this being done as the politicians on the whole and congressmen in particular are not upon notwithstanding how true the comment is. Is it particular so when they are charry if any adverse comment is made on the Gandhis. All these politicians who have opted for public life need to be open for adverse comments as they are in the public limelight and or it is their privilege.

Asked by: Arun

A: The examples being cited by Kapil Sibal are of harming religious sentiments and inciting hatred. Be that as it may, even if the content deserves to be removed—and I can't comment until I see the content he finds offensive—doing so by mandating pre-censorship by intermediaries with liability fixed on them otherwise is a wrong way of going about it.

* The chat is over. Read the original published in IBN Live Chat here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/ibn-live-chat-with-pranesh

Technology, Social Justice and Higher Education

praskrishna — 2015-03-30T14:54:21Z

Since the last two years, we at the Centre for Internet and Society, have been working with the Higher Education Innovation and Research Applications at the Centre for the Study of Culture and Society, on a project called Pathways to Higher Education, supported by the Ford Foundation.

The main aim of the project is to research the state of social diversity and justice in undergraduate colleges in India and encourage students to articulate the axes of discrimination and exclusion which might keep them from interacting and engaging with educational resources and systems in their college environments.

Peer-to-Peer Technologies

The entry point into these debates was digital technologies, where through an introduction to peer-to-peer technologies, digital story telling through various web based platforms, and a collaborative thought environment mediated by internet and digital technologies, we facilitated the students to identify, articulate and address questions of discrimination, change and the possibility of engaging with these critically in order to build a better learning environment for themselves (and their peers) in their own colleges.

Each workshop was designed not only to be sensitive to the specificities of the locations of the colleges, but also to accommodate for the needs, desires and aspirations of the students involved. The participants looked at their own personal, family and community histories, their everyday experiences, their affective modes of aspiration and desire, and their own circumstances which often circumscribe them, in order to come up with certain themes that they thought were relevant and crucial in their own contexts.

As a follow-up on the workshops, the students developed specific projects and activities that will help them strengthen their hypotheses by looking beyond the personal and finding ways by which they can engage with the larger communities, spreading awareness, building histories and acquiring skills to successfully bolster their classroom interaction and learning.

The following is a bird’s eye view of the key themes that have emerged in the workshops:

The Costs of Belonging

Almost unanimously, though articulating it in different ways, the students looked at different costs of belonging to a space. Sometimes it was the space of the web, sometimes of the larger educational institution, sometimes to distinct language groups which do not treat English as the lingua franca, and sometimes to communities and friend circles within the college environment.

It was particularly insightful for us to understand that granting access, providing infrastructure or equipping ‘underprivileged’ students with skills is not enough. In fact, it became apparent that there is a certain policy driven, post-Mandal affirmative action that has already bridged the infrastructural and access gap in the educational institutions. The easy availability of computers, internet access, the ubiquitous cell phone, were all indicators that for most of the students, it wasn’t a question of affording access. Even when we were dealing with economically disadvantaged students, there were a plethora of technology devices they had access to and familiarity with. Shared resources, public access to digital technologies, and institutional support towards promoting digital familiarity all played a significant role in demystifying the digital for them. In many ways, these students were digital natives if defined through access, because they had Facebook accounts and browsed Google to find everything they wanted. Their phone was an extension of their selves and they used it in creative ways to communicate and connect with their peers.

Based on this, the students are now prepared to work on documenting, exploring and raising awareness about these questions, to see what the gating factors are that disallow people with access to still feel excluded from the power of the digital.

The Need for Diversity

It is a telling sign about the state of the Internet in India that every student presumed that the only way to be really fluent with the digital web is to be fluent in English. The equation of English being synonymous with being online was both fascinating and troubling to us. Of course, a lot of it has to do with India’s own preoccupations, marked by a postcolonial subjectivity, with English as the language of modernity and privilege. But it also has to do with the fact that almost all things digital in India, lack localisation. The digital technologies and platforms remain almost exclusively in English, fostered by the fact that input devices (keyboards, for example) and display interfaces favour English as the language of computing.

Such an idea might also help in reducing the distance between those who can fluently navigate the web through its own language, and those who, through various reasons, find themselves tentative and intimidated online.

The breakthrough that the participants had, when they realised that they don’t have to be ‘proper in English’ while being online – the ability to find local language resources, fonts, translation machines, and the possibility of transliterating their local language in the Roman script was a learning lesson for us.

Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Learning

As a part of their orientation to the world of the digital, especially with the methodologies of the workshops, the students literally had an overnight epiphany where they could see the possibilities and potentials of P2P learning. The recognition that they are not merely recipients of knowledge but also bearers of experience and contexts which are rich and replete with knowledge, gave them new insights on how to approach learning and education. Through digital storytelling, the workshops demonstrated how, in our own stories and accounts of life, there are many indicators and factors which can help us engage with the realities of exclusion and injustice.

Working together in groups, not only to excavate knowledge from the outside, as it were, but also to unearth the knowledge, experience, stories, emotions that we all carry with ourselves and can serve as valuable tools to bring to the classroom, is a lesson that all the groups learned. The idea of a peer also led them to question the established hierarchies within formal education. What was particularly interesting was that they did not – as is often the case – translate P2P into DIY education. They recognised that there are certain knowledge and skill gaps that they would like experts to address and have incorporated special trainings with different experts in areas of language, communication, ethnography, interviews, film making, etc. However, the methods for these trainings are going to emphasise a more P2P structure that is different from the regular classroom learning.

What would happen if a teacher is looked at as a peer rather than a superior? How would they navigate curricula if the scope of their learning was greater than the curricula? How could they work together to learn from each other, different ways of learning and understanding? These are some of the questions that get reflected in their proposed campus activities, where they are trying to now produce knowledge about their communities, cities, families, groups and experiences, by conducting surveys, ethnographies, historical archive work, etc. The digital helps them in not only disseminating the information they are collecting but also in re-establishing their relationship with learning and knowledge.

Ideas like open space dialogues, collaborative story-telling, mobilising resources for knowledge production, creating awareness campaigns and interacting with a larger audience through the digital platforms are now a part of their proposals and promise to show some creative, innovative and interesting uses of these technologies. How the teachers would react to such an imagination of the students as peers within the formal education system, remains to be seen as we organise a faculty training workshop later in December.

These three large themes find different articulations, interpretations and executions in different locations. However, they seem to be emerging as the new forms of social exclusion that we need to take into account. It is apparent that the role of technologies – both at the level of usage and of imagination – is crucial in shaping these forms of social inequities. But the technologies can also facilitate negotiations and engagements with these concerns by providing new forms of knowledge production and pedagogy, which can help the students in developing better learning environments and processes. The Pathways to Higher Education remains committed to not only documenting these learnings but also to see how they might be upscaled and integrated into mainstream learning within higher education in India.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/digital-natives/pathways/blog/higher-education

Healing self-inflicted wounds

Shyam Ponappa — 2011-12-05T09:10:20Z

A spate of dysfunctional actions and retrograde developments has led to an unimaginable mess for India. Can the damage to growth prospects be undone? Does it need to be? If so, how? Three areas are discussed below.

Some months ago, the spectre was of consoling ourselves with a reduction of two per cent in growth, from 9.5 to 7.5 per cent. That’s history. What looms ahead is a larger, more serious threat. This ominous tidal-wave-in-the-making comprises many separate currents converging to undermine India’s take-off yet again. The prospect is long-term growth hamstrung by policy stand-offs, foreign direct investment in retail being a case in point, and social tensions fuelled by high unemployment.

Those who think India has arrived should be aware that it will take another decade of eight to nine per cent growth to be able to fund reasonable basic infrastructure and necessities for everyone. Why should it matter if you live in a rich cocoon? At the very least, you’ll be able to go out without stepping into filth or smelling it, or seeing masses of people struggling to survive.

Instead of a high-growth trajectory, we may get six to seven per cent, with luck. These prospects are clouded by wasteful expenditure, such as the perpetuation of an ill-functioning public distribution system and its concomitant, ration-shop-mentality, instead of efficient direct retail subsidies through electronic transfers. The negativity is amplified by fractious social and political tensions, and shoddy infrastructure crippling productivity: power outages, low-speed communications and poor logistics. One can argue (ah, argument) that the tensions are justifiable as an antithesis to increasing levels of corruption from political, bureaucratic and corporate kleptocracy feeding off the land and people, or hardening sectarian interests competing for predatory control. But if there’s one thing we can learn from others’ experience, it is to work together for better outcomes, or suffer; in game theory parlance, collaborate to optimise, or settle for worse.

Undoing Sectarian Alignments

Undoing the fractious underpinnings of sectarian alignments of language, caste and religion is beyond the scope of this article. The unpleasant reality is that unless such structural social impediments are addressed, malfunctions will continue. So we have this reality where, at one level, India is wonderful in the way people stream and swirl together, and at another, it is horrible because our potential is not manifested in living standards, with people fed, clothed and housed properly, and clean streets.

To return to misapplied intelligence in the political economy, consider three areas: interest rates, airlines, and telecommunications.

Interest Rates

It seems only the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) was unaware that the consequences of interest rate hikes since February 2010 would (a) not control inflation (short of an economic collapse), and (b) lead to a severe curtailing of growth. To be fair, some economists aided and abetted with remarks that interest rates must be raised because of high inflation.

By contrast, the accompanying charts for China and Germany (euro zone) show their negative real interest rates.

What we have to do is reduce interest rates, with selective credit controls to ensure that credit for speculation is constrained and costs are high, e.g., in certain real estate, commodities, stocks and derivatives. Implementation, likewise, has to be “intelligent”, with online tracking by exception, and not cumbersome or voluminous weekly or fortnightly reports that are manually compiled and/or analysed, filtered and then presented to committees for decisions.

Airlines

The structural anomalies in India’s taxes on aviation turbine fuel (ATF) and airport charges defy logic. For a decade, there has been talk of cuts in central and state taxes on ATF, but the problems continue. Consider the missed opportunity: India has a large domestic market and is well positioned for airlines to use this for establishing global leadership, as well as ubiquitous domestic services. Instead, the sector is bled for short-term government revenues, giving foreign airlines the advantage. ATF charges in India for international flights cost 16 per cent more than they do abroad, and local airlines pay over 50 per cent more because of taxes and additional charges. Consider the ludicrous stipulation that foreign airlines cannot invest in India, and the irrationality defies imagination. Add the illogic of a government-funded, loss-making airline undercutting private airlines, and we have the mess we are in.

Globally, airlines suffer from gratuitous free-market philosophies, the exceptions being airlines from strategically focused countries, e.g., in West Asia, Southeast Asia (Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand) and, of course, China. Wake up! Surely no one doubts that aviation is an integral aspect of logistics and transportation? The government needs to recognise this and build capacity, with policies like uniform, low state taxes. Also, as in telecommunications, aviation requires an oligopolistic structure with limited competition, which if ignored brings chaos and grief, because nothing else is sustainable.

Telecom & Broadband

The draft National Telecom Policy 2011 promises good things. Yet, like India’s potential, the promise will be realised only with convergent action. This iconic sector, which changed the way the country functions and is perceived, is on the verge of being ruined by dysfunctional intervention. For instance, the regulator and the government seem bent on applying retrospective charges for “excess spectrum”, taking the bottom out of the market. Worse, 3G services are hamstrung by government attempts to restrict services, while operators threaten litigation. Meanwhile, the bastions of “free market”, the US and the UK, are initiating shared spectrum policies. What good are our brilliant objective statements about excellent, affordable services if the government acts to achieve the opposite? And is it beneficial for India to hound solid companies like Telenor and Qualcomm (unless they commit transgressions), instead of taking a problem-solving approach?

If the confused doublespeak – of punitive charges, restrictive practices, PSUs building state-of-the-art networks, auctions and spectrum sharing, all in the same breath – continues, we may lose a decade or more because of instability and irrational policies. It is time for decisions on pay-for-use, open-access spectrum and networks. Incumbent network companies can be compensated along a downward-sloping power curve to give up their competitive advantage. We must start being reasonable and do things that make sense.

This article by Shyam Ponappa was published in Business Standard on 1 December 2011. Read the article at Organizing India Blogspot

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/healing-self-inflicted-wounds

An Interview of Nirmita Narasimhan on ITU Portal

praskrishna — 2011-11-28T06:36:54Z

ITU Girls in ICT is now online! ITU interviewed Nirmita and published her profile on their website.

Nirmita Narasimhan

Programme Manager
Centre for Internet and Society, India
Centre for Internet and Society, India

Nirmita Narasimhan is a Programme Manager with the Centre for Internet and Society and works on policy research and advocacy related to IP reform and technology access for persons with disabilities. She was awarded the National Award for Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities by the President of India in recognition of her work in December 2010. Her work ranges from research and policy drafting and review to advocacy through campaigns, workshops etc.

Nirmita’s current work focuses on copyright reform, accessibility, engaging in international discussions on IP related instruments at the World Intellectual Property Organisation, working with disability organisations, governments and UN bodies in advocating for digital accessibility, promoting open access with the Government of India and other issues which are part of the policy space in ICT accessibility in India. Certain specific areas on which she has worked are formulation of the draft National Electronic Accessibility Policy (with the Department of Information Technology), reviewing the Indian Copyright Act and working towards amendments to the Act to include exceptions and limitations for the print challenged, working at a national level towards support of the World Blind Union treaty at the WIPO, organising workshops on web accessibility for web developers in different cities around the country, working towards making accessible materials available for the visually challenged, creating advocacy resources for disability organisations and policymakers on implementing different aspects of the UNCRPD related to ICT accessibility etc. Nirmita’s work can be viewed at www.cis-india.org. Nirmita has presented papers in international fora like the IGF and the Asia Pacific conference on mainstreaming ICT technologies which was held in Bangkok in August 2009. Her focus was primarily policy formulation for ICT and electronic accessibility. She has also contributed to the G3ICT -ITU e-accessibility toolkit for policymakers which was published on line in February 2010and was editor of its print handbook version which was released in Delhi in October 2010. Since then, Nirmita is also part of the G3ict editorial team. Nirmita participated in the Right to Read event held in the European parliament in May 2010 and participated in the UN expert committee on implementation of the UNCRPD with respect to ICT and electronic accessibility for persons with disabilities in developing countries in June 2010. Nirmita has prepared reports in the capacity of expert for ITU and UNESCO on accessible mobile telephony and accessible ICT for education in the Asia Pacific region.

Nirmita is also a proficient Karnatic classical music singer and has been giving performances for many years now.

What would you say are the most challenging and the most satisfying aspects of your work?

One of the most challenging aspects of my work has been to make people from diverse backgrounds realise the need for accessibility and take action on it. I often encounter ignorance about the needs of persons with disabilities and a lack of sensitivity to their need for independence and dignity. It is very difficult to remain objective when faced with attitudes that consider dependence on others as an inevitable side affect of disability, instead of trying to see how attitudes and procedures can be improved to encourage and support independence. Dealing with people who are closed to new ideas and bringing them to an intelligent comprehension of disability is a difficult task. Another really challenging aspect of my work has been to try and build consensus amongst different organisations to work together towards a common goal.

The most satisfying aspect of my work is seeing the value it provides to people and how lives will become better because of some change I have worked towards bringing about. For instance as a result of the Right to Read campaign, the parliamentary Standing Committee recognised that the proposed wording in the new draft copyright bill was discriminatory and recommended that the concerns of disability groups be taken on board. This amendment will open up the world of books and knowledge to approximately 70 million persons with disabilities in India. Similarly when the Government comes out with an electronic accessibility policy, it will mean that eventually 7000 government web sites will become accessible to persons using assistive technologies. Another example of satisfaction was when the USOF started a process for including persons with disabilities in their pilot project scheme.

What qualifications or certifications did you attain in order to reach your professional goals?

I have a Bachelors degree in law. But more than just qualifications or certifications, I have learnt and achieved mostly through my experience and interaction with people around me.

If there is one message you would like to convey to young women to encourage them to consider a profession in the ICT sector, what would it be?

ICT can truly be a great equalizer since it opens up limitless opportunities for persons with disabilities and the world to benefit from each other. As a person with a disability myself, I have experienced firsthand the transforming power of ICT in my life. Despite not having an ICT background to start with, today I am working in the field of ICT and Accessibility. One of the lessons I have learnt on my journey is that one should not be afraid of trying new things for fear of failure or be hesitant to ask for help in the course of one’s life. Failures and dependence upon people are a part of every person’s life and should not be construed as a sign of individual weakness or weakness stemming from disability. For many people around the world, ICT has made it possible to live more or less independently and participate on an equal basis with the rest of society. I strongly urge all girls and women to take up a career using ICT as it will prove to be an invaluable tool to live a more independent life.

School and Degree Awarded

Bachelor of Law, University of Delhi
Bachelor (Hons) German, Jawaharlal Nehru University
M.Phil (Karnatic Music), University of Delhi

Featured projects

I have worked on several projects over the past few years. I contributed to the G3ict-ITU e-Accessibility Toolkit for Policymakers and was also editor of the print version. My organisation CIS was one of the champions of the Right to Read campaign.

www.e-accessibilitytoolkit.org
www.cis-india.org
http://usof.gov.in/usof-cms/disabled.htm

On line bio/story

Online bio

Read the original published by ITU here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/interview-with-nirmita

3rd Canadian Science Policy Conference

praskrishna — 2011-11-23T15:57:58Z

The Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) organised the 2011 conference at the Ottawa Convention Centre from 16 to 18 November 2011. Sunil Abraham spoke in the session on Global Implications of Open and Inclusive Innovation.

Conference Objectives

The Canadian Science Policy Conference fills a critical gap in the Canadian science policy environment by providing a permanent national forum for discussing science policy issues. The main objectives of the conference were to:

to provide an inclusive forum at the national level to identify, discuss and provide insights into the current Canadian science, technology and innovation policy issues;
to forge stronger linkages and create networking opportunities among science policy stakeholders;
to provide a venue for a new generation of scientists, entrepreneurs and policy makers to interact, innovate and shape the future of Canadian science policy landscape which is required for a knowledge-driven economy;
to provide a supportive environment for innovative ideas and projects in science policy, and encourage further collaborations across sectors;
to lay the foundation for a centre dedicated to science, technology and innovation policy.

Agenda

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

8:00 am - 6:00 pm
Registration Opens
9:00 am - 3:00 pm

Optional Workshop - Science Policy 101 (additional charges apply)
Part I: Understanding the Nuts and Bolts…
This workshop will provide a general overview of science policy, both in terms of “policy for science” and “science for policy.” The introductory session assumes participants have no prior knowledge of science policy and is intended for researchers, policy analysts, journalists/communicators, students and others interested in gaining a basic understanding of science policy definitions, concepts, governance, key players, key issues, funding, science advisory mechanisms, etc. Led by experts in science policy, the workshop will underscore the importance of scientists’ understanding the impacts of science in the policy-making process and the impacts of policy-making on the research enterprise.

Part II: Career Development Workshop: So You Want to do Science Policy...
Potentially interested in science policy but not sure where to turn? Join us to explore career opportunities and job-seeking strategies at the intersection of science and policy. You'll hear from and interact with a variety of science policy professionals at various stages of their careers and who have walked quite different paths to get to where they are. The workshop will explore skills needed to succeed in science policy and describe several avenues for learning more about science policy. Whether your background is in the sciences, engineering, public policy or whatever, if you have an interest in working in science policy this is an excellent opportunity to expand your professional network. The workshop will also be your opportunity to suggest how the Canadian Science Policy Centre can best support your career development needs and aspirations in science policy.

Jeff Kinder, Ph.D
Manager, S&T Strategy - Innovation and Energy Technology Sector
Natural Resources Canada
Jeff Kinder has over twenty years of experience in government science and in science and technology (S&T) policy in the U.S. and Canada. His experience in the U.S. includes work at the National Science Foundation, the National Academies' Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, and research in applied ocean acoustics at the Naval Research Laboratory. In Canada, Jeff has worked as Senior Policy Advisor in Science and Innovation at Industry Canada and in support of the Council of Science and Technology Advisors (CSTA), the external board that advised Cabinet on the management of federal S&T from 1998-2007. He is currently Manager, S&T Strategy, at Natural Resources Canada. Jeff’s research and teaching focuses on S&T policy, government laboratories, innovation systems and science advisory mechanisms. He is the co-author with Bruce Doern of Strategic Science in the Public Interest: Canada's Government Laboratories and Science-Based Agencies (University of Toronto Press, 2007) and is working on a history of the Science Council of Canada. He holds a PhD in Public Policy, an M.A. in Science, Technology and Public Policy and a B.S. in Physics.

Jason Blackstock, Ph.D
Senior Fellow CIGI & Research Scholar
IIASA Austria
With a unique background in physics, technology and international affairs, Dr Jason J Blackstock is a leading international policy adviser and scholar on both emerging geoengineering technologies, and the interface between science and global governance institutions. A physicist by training (PhD) and trade (PPhys), as well as a graduate of the Harvard Kennedy School (MPA), Jason is the Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment at CIGI (the Centre for International Governance Innovation, Canada) and a Research Scholar at IIASA (the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Austria), where he leads several international research projects evaluating the scientific, political and global governance implications of climate change, energy transitions, and emerging geoengineering technologies. Jason has also been elected Associate Fellow of the World Academy of Arts and Science, and is an adjunct member of faculty at the University of Waterloo’s Institute for Sustainable Energy (WISE).

1:00 pm - 3:00 pm
CSPC Supporter’s Caf (by invitation only, open to supporters and community partners)

3:30 pm - 5:15 pm
Science and Humanitarian Efforts - POSTPONED TILL 2012

Challenges for Young Researchers: Insights from the 2011 PAGSE Symposium
Fuelling Science Policy – new leaders speak out. Young scientists and engineers comprise a critically important, mobile pool of talent that stands to change the geography of knowledge in fundamental ways. Join a discussion with outstanding early career researchers from across Canada, as they present provocative views on the challenges and opportunities they face in driving the science agenda in this country over the next 25 years.
Your panelists for this session will come from the top-tier of young Canadian researchers. Prior to the conference this select group will be working together to develop the specific challenges that will be discussed. Members of this group will be identified during the session.

Moderator
Rees Kassen, Ph.D.
University Research Chair in Experimental Evolution
University of Ottawa
Despite being less than a decade into his career, Dr. Rees Kassen has quickly developed an international reputation. To the astonishment of more established colleagues, he has already published an impressive four papers in the field’s most prestigious journal, Nature. During his time at the University of Ottawa he has developed a strong independent research program and attracted more than $500,000 in research funding. In the process he has proved his strengths in designing and executing microbial experiments to test theory in ecology and evolution. Dr. Kassen manages to serve on a number of committees both at the university and in the community. His work has also attracted considerable media attention, and has been highlighted in the popular press such as CBC-Radio, the Toronto Star, Danish daily newspapers a podcast for the American Society of Microbiologists.

Arctic and Northern Science Policy and International Diplomacy
Canada’s share of the Earth’s arctic region is perhaps the largest in the world, but given the shared nature of arctic sovereignty, environmental stewardship and scientific research in this region must proceed within a spirit of international collaboration. Following on the heels of the third International Polar Year (2007-2009), this panel invites commentary from various international arctic stakeholders on the way that science and diplomacy interact and support one another in the process of researching Earth’s northern regions.

Moderator
Anita Dey Nuttall, Ph.D
Associate Director ( Research Advancement)
Canadian Circumpolar Institute, University of Alberta
Dey Nuttall's research focuses on the interface between science and politics in the Polar Regions, and in particular how a nation’s science policy and strategic interests influence and determine the development of its national Antarctic programs. She is currently developing new research on Canada’s strategy for polar science and development of the Canadian Antarctic Research Program.

David Hik, Ph.D
Professor - University of Alberta
President - International Arctic Science Committee
David Hik, Professor and Canada Research Chair in Northern Ecology in the Department of Biological Sciences at the University of Alberta, and President of the International Arctic Science Committee (IASC). From 2004-2009 he was also Executive Director of the Canadian International Polar Year (IPY) Secretariat.

His research program is focused on experimental and long-term studies of plant-herbivore dynamics and interactions in Arctic and alpine environments. For the past 20 years, most of this work has been conducted in the mountains of the southwest Yukon.

Stephanie Meakin
Science Advisor
Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada
Stephanie Meakin has a background in biology with more than 20 years experience as a policy and science advisor to various government and non-governmental organizations, including Inuit organizations at the national and international levels. She is currently the Science Advisor for the Inuit Circumpolar Council Canada and has spent eight years as lead researcher with ArcticNet on various research programs and projects.

Russel Shearer
Chair - Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP)
& Director - Northern Science and Contaminants Research Directorate
Aboringal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
Russel Shearer is the Director of the Northern Science and Contaminants Research Directorate within Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (formerly Indian and Northern Affairs Canada). Mr. Shearer is also the Chair of the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program (AMAP) working group, which is one of six working groups that carry out the work of the Arctic Council. Additionally, Mr. Shearer serves as the Chair of the Research Management Committee for ArcticNet, which is a network of Centres of Excellence, focussed on studying the impacts of climate change within the costal Canadian Arctic. Mr. Shearer has published a number of papers on the presence and impact of contaminants within the North and works primarily under the auspices of the Northern Contaminants Program (NCP).

Roberta Burns
US Arctic Officer
US State Department
Jenkins R&D Review Panel Report Recommendations - Implications for Canadian Business
The Jenkins Report on the effectiveness of $6.5 Billion spent annually in federal programs to support business R&D and innovation, calls for a “rebalancing” away from R&D tax credits - in favour of the increased use if “direct” funding for business. It also recommends a centralization of program delivery, a dismantling and transition of key NRC Institutes and programs such as IRAP, and enhanced roles for the Business Development Bank of Canada and government procurement in supporting Canadian SMEs. Would these recommendations assist Canadian business to conduct more research and innovation activity? The panel will explore these issues.

Moderator
David B. Watters
President
Global Advantage Consulting Group Inc.
David Watters worked for 30 years in the federal government as a senior executive and Assistant Deputy Minister in a variety of Economic Ministries including Industry Canada, Treasury Board and Finance Canada. He was the Assistant Deputy Minister in Finance Canada for Economic Development and Corporate Finance, where he helped to shape the economic and innovation investments in five federal Budgets. David then established the Global Advantage Consulting Group Inc. (Ottawa) and is the President of this strategic management consulting firm. The firm provides advice to corporate, association, and government clients in Canada and abroad about strategy development, innovative business models, the design and management of commercial networks, and enhanced decision-making, particularly in the areas of new technology investments, innovation/commercialization, trade, and energy/climate change projects, programs and policy.

David holds an Economics degree from Queen’s University as well as a Law degree in corporate, commercial and tax law from Queen’s Law School. He was also an adjunct Professor at the University of Ottawa Management School for seven years teaching International Negotiation to MBA students.

Celine Bak
Partner
Russel Mitchel Group
Céline Bak is an internationally recognized author, speaker and consultant on clean technology and on innovation and commercialization. She published and authored a ground-breaking national report on clean technology and on commercialization – the 2010 SDTC Cleantech Growth & Go-to-Market Report. Also published by her firm, the 2011 Canadian Clean Technology Industry Report builds on the 2010 baseline data set for Canada’s multibillion dollar clean technology industry that Analytica Advisors projects has the potential to attain $60 billion in annual revenues by 2020.

She is the co-founder of the Canadian Clean Technology Coalition that was struck to create the conditions required to make Canada’s clean technology industry an driver of Canada’s economic and energy productivity as well as an enabler for Canada’s green house gas reduction targets. Céline sits on the Clean Tech Advisory Board for the Department of Foreign Affairs and is a technical advisor to the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy for Climate Prosperity. She was the co-chair of the 2011 Canadian Cleantech Summit and sits on the nominations committee for the Canada Clean50. She is the chair of the Canada-Brazil Working Group for Clean Technology and Green Energy. She resides in Ottawa with her husband and three daughters.

Michael Turner
Vice President, System Strategies
Wesley Clover International
Wesley Clover International, based in Ottawa, Canada, is an investment & management firm with interests in leading edge information technology & communications companies, digital media, real estate and resort properties. As a member of the executive team Michael Turner provides strategic advice and support on technology issues and government innovation policy. In addition to his work with Wesley Clover, Michael also provides consulting services in these domains as well as in the use of Information & Communications Technologies within government, in Canada and internationally. Prior to joining Wesley Clover, Michael spent much of his career with the Canadian Federal Government, most recently as a senior official accountable for executive leadership and management of ICT operations for the Canadian Federal Government’s common services agency, Public Works and Government Services (PWGSC). He also served for a time as the Departmental CIO. During this period, Mr. Turner was a key member of the team responsible for Canada’s success in implementing Internet based e-Government services for its citizens and businesses.

Mr. Turner spent 25 years with the Canadian Coast Guard prior to his responsibilities at PWGSC. While with the Coast Guard. Michael served in a series of engineering and management positions of increasing responsibility. This included representing Canada for several years on various technical committees and then the Governing Council of the U.N.’s International Maritime Organization, based in London. For several years, Mr. Turner was the Deputy Commissioner - Canadian Coast Guard. Since leaving the public service, his consulting and advisory work has included projects, workshops and presentations in Australia, S.E. Asia, Africa, Europe, India and Ottawa. He has also participated in the development and delivery of an ICT and e-Government management training program for developing country governments. In 2008, Mr. Turner was a member of the City of Ottawa’s ‘Mayor’s Task Force on e-Government’, the recommendations from which are currently being implemented.

Dan Clow, Ph.D
Director Policy, Advocacy and Alliances Development
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
Dr. Dan Clow leads the internal Policy Team at GSK focusing on health, industrial, pharmaceutical and biologics policy at the National level and through cross-functional efforts at the Federal, Provincial and Territorial levels. He also oversees a national field-based team serving as GSK’s point of contact for patient advocacy groups and professional organizations (including medical associations and societies). Dan completed his undergraduate and graduate degrees at Queen’s University, graduating with his Ph.D. in Pharmacology and Toxicology in 1988. His neuroscience research interests led him to subsequently complete a post-doctoral fellowship in the Department of Anatomy at the University of Hawai’i at Manoa. Upon returning to Canada in 1990 he joined the pharmaceutical industry in a medical affairs capacity. Dan joined Glaxo Wellcome (now GSK) in 1996 and spent 10 years in the Government Affairs and Private Payer arena. In 2006, he joined the Medical Division where he managed the respiratory business serving as a strategic scientific partner to the marketing division and managing the respiratory collaborative research trials with Canadian scientists and clinicians. In late 2008, he returned to the Public Affairs Division to take on the policy assignment. In 2011 his role and team was expanded to include the mandate for managing relationships with patient advocacy groups and professional organizations.

Dan is a founding member and past chair of the Group Insurance Pharmaceutical Collaborative (GIPC) and recipient of the Rogers Who’s Who in Healthcare for his work in private sector and employer-based health management. He is currently a member of both the Policy and Stakeholder Relations Committees at Rx&D.

6:00 pm - 6:30 pm
Opening Ceremonies
6:30 pm - 7:30 pm
Keynote Panel - Big Picture Perspective on Science & Innovation Policy
With continuing uncertainty about the global economy and with persistent public policy challenges that respect no borders, science and innovation policy is of increasing importance for governments and organizations across Canada and around the world. How do leaders from various perspectives view the "big picture"? What are the key challenges and opportunities in the decade ahead and how can science, technology and innovation help to address them? How can states improve the performance of their science, technology and innovation systems to ensure better health outcomes, a safe and secure environment, and sustainable prosperity for their citizens? How are macro-decisions on the state of science and innovation policy being made, and what foundations can support efficient national innovation systems.

Introductions
Dr. Suzanne Fortier
President
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Dr. Suzanne Fortier has served as President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) since January 2006. She was re-appointed to this position in November 2010. During her first five years, Dr. Fortier brought a renewed focus on excellence to the agency. Changes to NSERC’s funding structure ensure that the best researchers receive the funding they need to conduct world-class research. NSERC now engages more closely with industries to initiate research and development projects with academic partners. Dr. Fortier has also forged stronger relationships with other federal granting agencies and organizations to increase the number and scope of joint initiatives available to researchers. For example, a collaboration between National Research Council Canada, Business Development Bank of Canada and NSERC resulted in an ambitious new national initiative in nanotechnology.

Before her appointment to this position, Dr. Fortier held a number of senior research and administrative positions at Queen’s University. She joined Queen's University as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemistry in 1982 after holding research positions at the Medical Foundation of Buffalo and National Research Council Canada. She then served as Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, Acting Vice-Principal (Research), and Associate Dean in the School of Graduate Studies and Research before being appointed Vice-Principal (Research) in 1995. Most recently (2000-05), she was Vice-Principal (Academic).

Moderator
Véronique Morin
Science Journalist
Tele-Quebec
Véronique Morin is a journalist in both print and television with over 20 years experience who believes strongly that Science should have an important place in daily newscasts. She is currently working as science journalist for the science magazine program « Le Code Chastenay » on the public network Tele-Quebec, writing freelance magazine articles, as well as developing a documentary project. Recently (idea and research) her documentary “Time Bombs”, about Canadian veterans who have participated in atomic bomb tests, received the awards of « Best documentary” from the New York International Independent Film and Video festival, « Best Documentary » from the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, and Veronique was nominated for “Best research” at the Gemeaux awards 2008. Veronique Morin was president of the Canadian Science Writers' Association (CSWA) from 2001-2005.

She was elected the first president of the World Federation of Science Journalists (WFSJ) from 2002-2004. She also serves as a judge on numerous awards recognizing excellence in journalism.

Rémi Quirion, OC, Ph.D., CQ, FRSC
Chief Scientist & Chariman of the Board
Fonds de recherche du Québec
On September 1, 2011, Rémi Quirion, OC, PhD, CQ, FRSC, became Québec's first chief scientist. As such, he chairs the boards of directors of the three Fonds de recherche du Québec and advises the Minister of Economic Development, Innovation and Export Trade on research and scientific development issues. Until his appointment as chief scientist, Rémi Quirion was the vice-dean for science and strategic initiatives in the faculty of medicine at McGill University and senior university advisor on health sciences research. He was the scientific director of the Douglas Mental Health University Institute Research Centre, a full professor in the department of psychiatry at McGill University and the executive director of the International Collaborative Research Strategy for Alzheimer's Disease of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Professor Quirion was the first scientific director of the Institute of Neurosciences, Mental Health and Addiction (INMHA), one of Canada's 13 health research institutes.

His work helped to elucidate the roles of the cholinergic system in Alzheimer's disease, of neuropeptide Y in depression and memory and of the calcitonin gene-related peptide (CGRP) in pain and opiate tolerance. Rémi Quirion earned his PhD in pharmacology from Université de Sherbrooke in 1980 and carried out his postdoctoral training at the National Institute of Mental Health in the United States in 1983. He has over 650 publications in prominent scientific journals and is one of the most extensively cited neuroscientists in the world. He has received several awards and honours, including the Ordre national du Québec (Chevalier du Québec, CQ) in 2003, the Prix Wilder-Penfield (Prix du Québec) in 2004 and the Order of Canada (OC) in 2007. Mr. Quirion is also a member of the Royal Society of Canada.

Ian Chubb
Chief Scientist
Australian Government
Professor Ian Chubb was appointed to the position of Chief Scientist on 19 April 2011 and commenced the role on 23 May 2011. Prior to his appointment as Chief Scientist Professor Ian Chubb was Vice-Chancellor of the Australian National University from January 2001 to February 2011. He was Vice-Chancellor of Flinders University of South Australia for six years and the Senior Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Monash University for two years while simultaneously the Foundation Dean of the Faculty of Business and Economics for 16 months.

In 1999 Professor Chubb was made an Officer of the Order of Australia (AO) for “service to the development of higher education policy and its implementation at state, national and international levels, as an administrator in the tertiary education sector, and to research particularly in the field of neuroscience”. In 2006 he was made a Companion (AC) in the order for “service to higher education, including research and development policy in the pursuit of advancing the national interest socially, economically, culturally and environmentally, and to the facilitation of a knowledge-based global economy”. In 2000, Professor Chubb was awarded a Doctor of Science (Honoris Causa) from Flinders University. He was made the ACT’s Australian of the Year in 2011 for his contribution to higher education.

R. Peter MacKinnon
President, University of Saskatchewan
& member of the STIC State of the Nation Working Group
Originally from Prince Edward Island, Peter MacKinnon has lived in Saskatoon since 1975. He previously served the University of Saskatchewan as Dean of Law and Acting Vice-President (Academic) and was appointed President of the University in July, 1999. Educated at the University of Saskatchewan, Queen's and Dalhousie, Mr. MacKinnon articled in Kingston and was admitted to the Ontario Bar in 1975 and to the Law Society of Saskatchewan in 1979. He was appointed Queen's Counsel in 1990. He is currently a member of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee on the Public Service; a member of the Science, Technology and Innovation Council of Canada; a member of the Board of the Saskatoon Airport Authority; a former Chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada and has been a Chair or member of several public service boards, councils and committees since his appointment as president.

Recent awards include honorary degrees from the Memorial University of Newfoundland and the University of Regina and the Canadian Bar Association’s Distinguished Service Award in Saskatchewan (2005). Peter MacKinnon is currently serving his third term as President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Saskatchewan.

7:30 pm - 9:00 pm
Mingling Politics and Science Reception
9:00 pm - 10:00 pm
DUST

Thursday, November 17, 2011

7:30 am - 8:30 am
Registration & Continental Breakfast
8:30 am - 8:40 am
Welcome Address
Jim Roche
President & Chief Executive Officer
CANARIE Inc.
Jim was appointed President and CEO of CANARIE in February 2010. He is a successful entrepreneur with over twenty-five years of leadership experience, having been a founding member and General Manager at Newbridge Networks Corporation (now Alcatel-Lucent), a co-founder and CEO of Tundra Semiconductor (now IDT), the CEO of CMC Microsystems and the founder and CEO of Stratford Managers, a company he continues to lead. In addition to his corporate duties, he also serves on numerous boards and committees including the ICT Advisory Board for DFAIT, the Committee of Research Partnerships for NSERC, the Expert Panel on Business Innovation for CCA and others. He is also an Executive-in-Residence at the Telfer School of Management at the University of Ottawa and is frequently called on to speak about entrepreneurship, commercialization of innovation, and strategy development.

Jim holds a Bachelor of Science in Electrical Engineering from Queen’s University, where he graduated at the top of his class and won multiple scholarships. He has added to his management skills through intensive programs at Stanford, Ivey, Queen’s and elsewhere.

8:40 am - 10:10 am
Building Stronger Communities Through Innovation
How do we build innovative communities? This is a central challenge for Canada in the 21st century since innovative communities form the foundation of a prosperous country. As more than a decade of research on industry clusters has shown, a robust innovation system can have a profoundly positive impact on local communities when it translates into high quality jobs, industrial growth, new enterprises, improved public infrastructure and services and a cleaner, healthier environment. But building innovation into our communities takes the involvement of individuals and institutions across the spectrum of society. Universities, colleges, research hospitals, private companies, governments and non-profit agencies, along with the talented, creative people that work in these organizations, must be free to work together and share their knowledge and ideas. Yet fostering collaboration and knowledge exchange between different organizations, with different interests and capacities can be challenging. Successful collaboration requires time, resources, communication, shared goals, commitment and risk-taking.

A panel of leading Canadian thinkers in inter-sectoral and inter-organizational collaboration will discuss how university and college researchers can work with local businesses to translate new knowledge into new creative products and beneficial services. They will look at the role of research hospitals in contributing to both the health and wealth of local communities. And they will discuss best practices in overcoming the institutional and cultural barriers to collaboration.

Chair
Gilles G. Patry, Ph.D
President and CEO
Canada Foundation for Innovation
On August 1, 2010, Dr. Gilles G. Patry became the fourth President and CEO of the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). Following a long and distinguished career as a consultant, a researcher, and a university administrator, Dr. Patry brings to the CFI a wealth of experience from both the private and academic sector .

Dr. Patry holds a B.A.Sc. and M.A.Sc. in civil engineering from the University of Ottawa, and a Ph.D. from the University of California, Davis in environmental engineering. He was an environmental engineering consultant (1971-78) before becoming professor of civil engineering at École Polytechnique de Montréal (1978-83) and then at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ont. (1983-93). Dr. Patry’s research program at McMaster led him to develop an innovative modelling concept for the simulation of wastewater treatment plant dynamics, and ultimately, to launch a Hamilton-based consulting company, Hydromantis, Inc. His research focuses on modelling, simulation and control of environmental systems.

Chair
Marie Carter, FEC, P.Eng
Chief Operating Officer
Engineers Canada
Marie is the chief operating officer of Engineers Canada. For seven years, she was the organization’s director of professional and international affairs and secretary to its Canadian Engineering Qualifications Board and International Committee. Her work includes ensuring the implementation of Engineers Canada’s Strategic Plan, which includes activities related to the development and maintenance of national qualification standards for admission to, and the practice of, professional engineering in Canada international activities to enhance the mobility of Canadian engineers. Marie also ensures proper management of resources, distribution of products and services to Engineers Canada’s members and that business operations run smoothly. Marie has also been responsible for projects to increase the recognition of foreign credentials for internationally-educated engineering graduates.

Prior to joining Engineers Canada in April 2001, Marie worked for 13 years in transportation engineering consulting and carried out various environmental assessment studies. Marie graduated with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from Carleton University in Ottawa in 1989.

Respondent and Facilitator
Chad Gaffield, Ph.D
President
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council
Chad Gaffield, one of Canada’s foremost historians, was appointed president of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) on September 18, 2006. Gaffield came to SSHRC from the University of Ottawa, where he held a University Research Chair and was the founding director of the Institute of Canadian Studies. During his 20-year University of Ottawa career, he also served as vice-dean of graduate studies and on the executive committee of the board of governors. He is a former president of the Canadian Historical Association and the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences.

Dr. Kevin Smith
President and CEO
St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton
& St Joseph's Lifecare Centre Brantford
Dr. Smith is President and CEO of St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton and St Joseph's Lifecare Centre Brantford since 2009; and CEO of St Mary's General Hospital Kitchener-all members of the St Joseph's Health System. He is also Associate Professor in the Department of Medicine - Faculty of Health Sciences of McMaster University. Dr. Smith's experience also includes work and training in the areas of medical curricula development, management training for academic health professionals, performance and incentives models for enhanced creativity and productivity and numerous roles in both University and Teaching Hospitals. Dr. Smith is currently co-leading the Government's Emergency Department and Alternate Level of Care initiative, and is also playing a leadership role in the Premier's delegations to China. Dr. Smith also contributes as chair or member of various Provincial and National bodies as well as various private and philanthropic Boards.

Fred Morley
Executive VP & Chief Economist
Greater Halifax Partnership
Fred Morley is Executive Vice-President and Chief Economist of the Greater Halifax Partnership since 2002, an organization focused on retaining and expanding existing business and bringing new investment to Halifax. A former professor at Saint Mary’s University, Fred Morley has also served as senior economic advisor to the Government of Nova Scotia, senior policy analyst at the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, and as senior manager at Nova Scotia Business Inc. He serves as a member of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the boards of the International Economic Development Council in Washington DC, the Acadia Centre for Small Business and Entrepreneurship, and Saint Mary’s Business Development Centre. He holds undergraduate degrees in chemistry and economics from Dalhousie University and did graduate work at Dalhousie and Saint Mary’s University.

Fassi Kafyeke
Director, Strategic Technology
Bombardier Aerospace
Fassi Kafyeke joined Bombardier Aerospace in 1982. In 1996, he became Manager of Advanced Aerodynamics. As Chief Aerodynamicist, he was responsible for aerodynamic design and development wind tunnel testing for all Bombardier Jets (Global Express, CRJ-700, 900 and 1000, Challenger 300, C-Series. In 2007, he became Director of Strategic Technology, in charge of all engineering research and development activities of the company. He has several publications in peer-reviewed journals and conference proceedings and is the author of a book on Computational Fluid Dynamics. In 2001, he was the recipient of the Grand Prix d’Excellence of the Order of Engineers of Québec. In 1980, Dr. Kafyeke graduated from the University of Liege (Belgium) with a degree in Aerospace Engineering. The following year he completed his Master’s degree in Air Transport Engineering at the Cranfield Institute of Technology (England) and in 1994, he received his Doctorate in Mechanical Engineering (Aerodynamics) from École Polytechnique de Montréal.

Hon. Mike Harcourt
Lawyer, Community Activist, and former BC Premier
Mike Harcourt is a former Premier of British Columbia, Mayor of Vancouver and City Councillor. He is a passionate believer in the power of cities and communities to improve the human condition. As such, as a speaker, author and advisor internationally on sustainable cities, he was appointed to serve on numerous committees, namely as Chair of the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee for Cities and Communities, Co-chair the National Advisory Committee on the UN-HABITAT World Urban Forum, and as a member of the National Round Table on the Environment and Economy. Mr. Harcourt’s exemplary career as Lawyer, Community Activist, and Politician has been honoured, with the Woodrow Wilson Award for Public Service, the Canadian Urban Institute’s Jane Jacobs Lifetime Achievement Award and the UBC Alumni Achievement Award of Distinction for contributions to British Columbia, Canada and the global community.

10:10 am - 10:30 am
Coffee Break
10:30 am - 12:00 pm
The Role of K* in Strengthening Science-Policy Integration
This fast-paced and interactive session will begin with short (~3-minute) presentations by each panelist, followed by two sets of round-table discussions among participants and each of the six panelists, and a short wrap-up segment. Knowledge translation and brokering (KT-KB) are part of an increasingly-recognized spectrum of knowledge transfer approaches that can significantly contribute to strengthened science-policy integration. The “K*” concept was first discussed at Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) 2010 in Montreal and encapsulates the variety of terms used by practitioners in this field, including Knowledge Translation, Brokering, Management, Mobilization, Transfer, Adoption etc. These K* approaches recognize the need for active engagement across the science-policy spectrum, and for careful consideration of users’ information needs, preferred format, time frame and communication mechanisms. K* approaches are increasingly being adopted in a variety of fields, including health, environmental sustainability, education, agriculture and international development. Building on the successful one-day KT-KB workshop held during CSPC 2010, this year’s panel will engage the broader CSPC community and:

Provide insight into this active, emerging field;
Showcase practical and tangible examples of the value and power of KT-KB and other K* approaches in Canada and internationally;
Develop the theme of demonstrating the impacts of Knowledge Mobilization activities;
Be a waypoint for the first international K* Summit in 2012, and subsequent development of a multi-sectoral forum and White Paper for K* issues nationally and internationally.

Convenor
Alex T. Bielak, Ph.D
Senior Fellow and Knowledge Broker
United Nations University
Dr. Alex Bielak is a member of the faculty at the United Nations University and also serves as Senior Advisor to the Chair of UN-Water. As Senior Research Fellow and Knowledge Broker in the freshwater programme at the UNU’s Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH, the U.N. Think Tank on Water) Alex also leads a new Knowledge Management and Mobilization (K*) initiative for the Institute. Previously Alex was Environment Canada’s first-ever Director, Science and Technology Liaison with a mission of communicating science knowledge to targeted audiences and linking science with policy development. Before that he spent over a year as A/Director General, S&T Strategies Directorate, where he set up the Directorate and led the team developing EC's new Science Plan. A NATO Scholar, he has also held senior positions with Canada’s National Water Research Institute, NGOs, and other federal and provincial government departments.

Alex holds a PhD degree in Freshwater Biology from the University of Waterloo and has served on numerous National and International Boards and Committees. Recently appointed as an Adjunct Professor in the Department of Communication Studies and Multi-Media at McMaster University, recognition of his professional and volunteer activities includes a UW Science Faculty “Distinguished Alumni Award” on the occasion of UW’s 50th Anniversary and appointment as the first Honorary Member of the Canadian Rivers Institute in 2011.

Convenor
Shannon deGraaf
Senior Science Policy Analyst, S&T Liaison
Environment Canada
Shannon joined Environment Canada’s S&T Liaison team as a Science-Policy Analyst in January 2009. Shannon’s work with S&T Liaison has focused on communicating science activities and results to various decision-making audiences including senior management, practitioners and policy communities; contributing to best practices in science-policy linkages through the development of the Strengthening Science-Policy Linkages Study Series; and highlighting the role of knowledge translation and brokering tools in federal science-based departments and agencies through the development of an Interdepartmental Compendium of KT-KB Tools. Prior to joining S&T Liaison Shannon has had more than ten years of experience in Environment Canada’s Great Lakes Program with a focus on outreach. Shannon has a degree in Environmental Studies from Brock University.

Amanda Cooper
KNAER Program Manager, Research & Knowledge Mobilization
and RSPE Research & Program Coordinator
Amanda Cooper specializes in research-practice-policy relationships. Her interests professionally and academically revolve around improving research use in public services. Currently, she is managing the Knowledge Network for Applied Education Research (KNAER), www.knaer-recrae.ca, an ambitious effort to improve knowledge mobilization in education across Ontario. Amanda has also been the coordinator for the Research Supporting Practice in Education program at OISE, www.oise.utoronto.ca/rspe, since its inception in 2007. There is growing awareness that research mediation by intermediary organizations is integral to knowledge mobilization. Amanda’s doctoral research analyzes efforts made by 44 knowledge mobilization intermediaries (third party, research brokering organizations) that facilitate linkages between research producing contexts and research using contexts to increase research use and its impact in education across Canada. She provides talks, workshops and consulting on knowledge mobilization for researchers, practitioners, policymakers, intermediaries and other organizations across sectors.

Katrina Hitchman, Ph.D
Manager of Strategic Programs
Canadian Water Network
After finishing her Honours Bachelor of Arts degree at Mount Allison University, Katrina completed her master’s and PhD degrees in Industrial and Organizational Psychology at the University of Waterloo. Katrina joined the Canadian Water Network in February 2009 to assist in the development and management of CWN partnership-based programs, particularly the evolving research consortia. Katrina conducted a comparative organizational analysis examining the organizational structure and functions of Canadian and international organizations that share CWN’s mandate of using research to inform practice and policy. As CWN continues to explore consortia-based models for putting its research to work, she will focus on the development of knowledge translation tools for researchers and research users, evaluating the success of CWN programs, and pursing opportunities to enhance CWN’s profile as a leading knowledge translation and brokering organization.

David Phipps, Ph.D
Director, Research Services & Knowledge Exchange
York University/ResearchImpact
ResearchImpact

David is responsible for the management and support of research services (research grants and contracts, research ethics, technology and knowledge transfer); participates in strategic planning; negotiates research contracts and grants, manages research data and develops research performance measurements; ensures compliance with government policies and the University mandate.

Louise Shaxson
Senior Research Fellow, RAPID
Overseas Development Institute (UK)
& Associate, Delta Partnership
Louise is a senior research fellow at the Overseas Development Institute, UK’s leading think tank on international development; and an associate of Delta Partnership, an international management consultancy company based in London. Her particular area of interest is evidence-based policymaking and the links between knowledge and policy. She has authored and provided guidance on the provision of expert scientific advice to senior policy officials, what constitutes robust evidence for policy making, advised on horizon scanning projects and has published several journal articles and book chapters relating to evidence-based policy making. She has co-authored a forthcoming book on Knowledge, policy and power in international development: a practical guide which will be published by The Policy Press/University of Chicago Press in 2012.

Over the past few years, Louise became acquainted with a group of Canadians who shared her interested in evidence-based policy and, in particular, knowledge translation and brokering. Most recently, she was involved with CSPC where she gave a presentation on the distribution of responsibility in policy delivery and relating issues at the Canadian Science Policy Conference in Montreal last October.

Global Implications of Open and Inclusive Innovation
The context of innovation is being transformed by the growing ubiquity of affordable technologies, such as mobiles, even in the most remote parts of the world. In a June 4 2011 New York Times article, Thomas Friedman indicated that “Carlson’s Law” was an important consequence of these changes: “In a world where so many people now have access to education and cheap tools of innovation, innovation that happens from the bottom up tends to be chaotic but smart. Innovation that happens from the top down tends to be orderly but dumb,” observes Curtis Carlson, the CEO of SRI International. As a result, he says, the sweet spot for innovation today is “moving down,” closer to the people, not up, because all the people together are smarter than anyone alone and all the people now have the tools to invent and collaborate.” In emerging economies, new business models and innovative forms of entrepreneurship are flourishing, particularly in the informal sectors. What can Canada learn from these innovations? How should science policies respond? This panel will attempt to inform debates about the relationship between science policy, intellectual property regimes, changing technological platforms and private sector innovation. To do so, the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), the organizer of this panel will bring together experts from Canada, Brazil, South Africa and India to discuss emerging evidence on these issues, as well as recommendations for decision-makers.
Moderator

Matthew Smith
Program Officer
International Development Research Centre, Canada
Matthew Smith oversees research on the use of information and communication technologies (ICTs) to foster sustainable development and socio- economic equity at the International Development Research Centre (IDRC), a Canadian crown corporation. Before joining IDRC, Smith did postgraduate research on the interaction between technology and society, in particular the impact of e-government systems on citizens’ trust in the government of Chile. He has published on this subject and others, including the concept of openness to broaden access and inclusion. Smith holds a PhD in information systems and an MSc in development studies from the London School of Economics and Political Science (England), as well as an MSc in artificial intelligence from the University of Edinburgh (Scotland).

Sunil Abraham
Executive Director
Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), India
Sunil Abraham is the Executive Director of the Centre for Internet and Society in Bangalore India. He founded Mahiti in 1998 which aims to reduce the cost and complexity of Information and Communication Technology for the Voluntary Sector by using Free Software. Today, Mahiti employs more than 50 engineers and Sunil continues to serve on the board. Between June 2004 and June 2007, Sunil also managed the International Open Source Network a project of United Nations Development Programme's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme serving 42 countries in the Asia-Pacific region.

Jeremy De Beer
Associate Professor, Faculty of Law
University of Ottawa
Jeremy is an Associate Professor at the University of Ottawa's Faculty of Law. His expertise is in the area of technology and intellectual property law. He has a graduate degree in law from the University of Oxford, and degrees in business and in law from the University of Saskatchewan. His research and recent publications address topics ranging from digital copyrights to biotechnology patents, with particular emphasis on the intersection of technology, intellectual property and international development.

Pria Chetty
Associate Director
Technology and Innovation Law, PricewaterhouseCoopers, South Africa
Pria Chetty is the Associate Director, Technology and Innovation Law at PricewaterhouseCoopers in South Africa. She completed her law degree in 2000 and went on to specialise in Electronic and Intellectual Property Law . She is the founder of Technology and Innovation Law Firm, Chetty Law, in South Africa, which has provided legal and strategic advisory services to a wide range of clients including public sector agencies, NGO’s, local and internationally listed companies and South Africa’s most innovative entrepreneurs. She was identified as one of the Brightest Young Minds in South Africa and later, in 2006, featured in Maverick magazine as one of five young attorneys making their mark in legal practice in South Africa.

Science Culture, Organized and Prioritized: Three National and International Initiatives
Culture is big: annually, some 290 million citizens actively participate in the exhibitions, programs, events and outreach initiatives organized by 2,400 science centres worldwide. Other types of institutions, radio, internet, and film build further on that reach. This session will examine three recent initiatives that seek to organize, define, and take strategic advantage of the work of hundreds of diverse science engagement and knowledge creation organisations nationally and internationally. Increasingly, strategic focus among this diverse set of content and communication partners is bringing new attention to science engagement for the benefit of national and global society.
This session will examine Inspiring Australia, an initiative of the Australian government to create regional networks of diverse engagement organizations and connect them effectively with the science knowledge creators in order to better execute science engagement in that country. We will also examine a initiative to benchmark "science culture" in order to better measure future progress . And finally we will examine a global initiative by science centres to use science engagement in a truly global context.

Moderator
Tracy Ross
Executive Director
Canadian Association of Science Centres (CASC)
Tracy Ross is the Executive Director of the Canadian Association of Science Centres, the national network that serves more than 45 charitable science centres, science museums and similar organisations that inspire 8 million people annually with learning experiences in science. The association is a national platform for collaboration, networking and tackling common issues. In May 2012, the association will be holding its 10th annual conference in Ottawa hosted by the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation. Tracy graduated from Queen’s University at Kingston in 1996 with a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Environmental Chemistry, and from the University of Toronto in 2000 with a Master’s degree in the History and Philosophy of Science and Technology. She got her start with science centres as a host at the Ontario Science Centre where she delivered a variety of lively demonstrations, developed a new tabletop experience, and facilitated learning with visitors of all ages. She has served on the Board of Directors of the Science and Technology Awareness Network and the steering committee for National Science and Technology Week. She lives in Ottawa, where, as an avid sailor, she also serves on the Board of Directors of the Nepean Sailing Club.

Lesley Lewis
Chief Executive Officer
Ontario Science Centre
Chief Executive Officer of the Ontario Science Centre since 1998, Lesley Lewis has led a major evolution of the landmark cultural attraction. Under Ms Lewis’ leadership over the past decade, the Science Centre has significantly renewed two thirds of its public spaces focusing on embracing new audiences, engaging visitors of all ages with science, scientists and innovation as well as incorporating current science news into daily offerings. From 2000 to 2006. Ms. Lewis spearheaded the Centre’s $47.5 million Agents of Change transformation.

As CEO, Ms. Lewis has sharpened the organization’s focus on extending its brand, audience reach and relevance. The Science Centre introduced an array of programs designed to ensure accessibility to all members of the community.

She is a respected member of the international science centre community, and has been active in global forums describing the Ontario Science Centre’s evolution into a new model for public engagement with science.

Ms Lewis is an invited member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s Committee on Science and Technology Engagement with the Public. She also currently serves on the Board of Directors of Tourism Toronto. From 2007 to 2009, she was President of the global Association of Science Technology Centers based in Washington D.C. She was a member of the China Association for Science and Technology’s international advisory committee for a new science and technology museum in Beijing that opened in 2009 and Chair of the Fifth Science Centre World Congress which was hosted by the Ontario Science Centre in Toronto in 2008. In that capacity she led the development of the Toronto Declaration, the science centre field’s first-ever shared global statement of beliefs and goals.

Prior to joining the Ontario Science Centre, Ms. Lewis was the Executive Director of the Ontario Heritage Foundation for six years and for three years Executive Director of the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Denise Amyot
President and CEO
Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation
Denise Amyot is currently, President and CEO of the Canada Science and Technology Museums Corporation whose mandate is to foster scientific and technological literacy throughout the country. The Corporation and its three museums – the Canada Agriculture Museum, the Canada Aviation and Space Museum, and the Canada Science and Technology Museum – tell the stories of Canadian ingenuity and achievement in science and technology.

She has worked both in National Headquarters and in regions in several federal departments including central agencies, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, National Defense, Natural Resources Canada, and Canadian Heritage. In her former three roles as Assistant Deputy Minister, she was respectively responsible for leading and managing leadership development programs and developing policies for employees and executives throughout the public Service of Canada, the corporate management services, as well as public affairs and ministerial services. She has worked extensively in policy and line operations in the context of programs and service delivery, in social, economic, and cultural areas. She also worked for few years with the Government of the Northwest Territories.

Ms Amyot is the former President of the Institute of Public Administration of Canada, Vice-President of the Head of Federal Agencies Steering Committee, and member of the Board of Governors at the Ottawa University and at the Algonquin College. She is the former President of the Association of Professional Executives of the Public Service of Canada and former President of the Communications Community Office. Ms Amyot has obtained a Master's degree in Education and three Bachelor degrees in Biology, in Arts and in Education.

11:30 am - 1:30 pm
CANARIE Showcase & Exhibitor Tours
12:00 pm - 12:45 pm
Lunch
12:45 pm - 1:15 pm
Special Keynote Address by the Minister of State (Science and Technology)
Join the The Honourable Gary Goodyear, Member of Parliament for Cambridge & North Dumfries, and Minister of State (Science and Technology).

Hon. Gary Goodyear
Minister of State (Science and Technology)
Member of Parliament for Cambridge & North Dumfries
1:20 pm - 2:50 pm
Funding Innovation, Measuring Societal Impacts and Informing Science Policy
A major challenge for Canadian science policy is related to what areas of science to invest in, how best to make budget allocations that will address the needs of society while benefiting the Canadian economy, and then assessing the impact of those investments. As health care costs continue to rise, there are ongoing efforts to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the health system. Research is recognized as a valuable investment to optimize the delivery and provision of health care, with nearly one quarter of Canada’s R&D spend, but is an incremental and iterative endeavor. The pathway from research to improved health and systems is neither linear nor simple. The complexity is amplified by the multitude of players involved; researchers, industry health care providers, policy makers, and the public. Research funders recognize the need for greater collaboration in providing innovative solutions to understanding how investments in health research make a difference to the health and wellbeing of Canadians. Consequently, this symposium brings together presenters from three Canadian research funding organizations, an academic Institution and one non-profit think tank.
Our panel examines methodologies used to analyze and demonstrate research impact. These methodologies are helping to elucidate and clarify the various pathways through which health research leads to societal wellbeing. The panel moderator will engage participants in the discussion with an aim to advance the science of impact assessment such that it will meet the needs of science policy and justify science spending to the public.

Moderator
Pierre Therrien
Director Market Structure & Framework Policy Analysis
Industry Canada
Pierre Therrien is Director, Market Structure and Framework Policy Analysis at Industry Canada within the Economic Research and Policy Analysis (ERPA) Branch. Prior to join ERPA, Pierre worked for several years in another sector within Industry Canada in the Science and Innovation Sector, where he led several projects related to the measurement science and innovation impact measures. Pierre also spent two years at the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development in Paris, France, where he coordinated several projects to develop new policy-relevant indicators related to government public support to R&D.

Laura McAuley
Manager, Impact Assessment Unit
Canadian Institutes for Health Research
Laura McAuley, MSc. is the Manager of the Impact Assessment Unit at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. She led the initial implementation of the CIHR impact assessment framework and now continues to lead the ongoing refinement and methodological development in this area at CIHR. Laura has worked in the area of health research evaluation for the past seven years building on previous experience working in academic health research spanning the four pillars.

Kathryn E. Graham
Director, Performance Management
Alberta Innovates - Health Solutions
Kathryn E. Graham, Ph.D. is the Director of the Performance Management Department at Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions located in Alberta. Her experience is in the development, implementation and management of evaluation frameworks and conducting evaluations of health and research at the level of the program, organization and at multi-sites. She has a Ph.D. in applied psychology from the University of Cranfield, England with a specialization in occupational psychology, measurement, evaluation and human factors.

Ghislaine Tremblay
Director of Evaluation and Outcome Assessment
Canada Foundation for Innovation
Ghislaine Tremblay is the Director of Evaluation and Outcome Assessment at the Canada Foundation for Innovation. Over more than a decade she has held a variety of leadership roles in managing S&T funding programs and brings this broad expertise to the evaluation team that she leads. In her current role, Ms Tremblay has overseen the development of the Performance, Evaluation, Risk and Audit Framework, the Overall Performance and Value for Money Audit and outcome measurement study methodology and implementation.

Eddy Nason
Director, Toronto Office
IOG
Eddy Nason is the Director of the IOG’s Toronto office and their lead on health and innovation policy work. He specializes in research evaluation, particularly focusing on ROI approaches, and research impact framework and indicator development. He has advised research funders in the UK, Netherlands, Ireland, Australia and Canada on impact evaluation.

Education and Training of Scientists
Over the past 15 years, there has been an enormous shift in the human resources performing scientific research. The training period has lengthened significantly and adjustments must be made to address the growing concerns of young scientists. Many individuals, who do not have permanent positions, share a unique set of experiences and challenges that need to be better addressed in order to avoid wasting the substantial resources invested in their education and training.
This panel aims to address two main themes:
1. Are we producing too many biomedical research trainees?
2. What careers will the large majority of highly specialized PhDs undertake and who should facilitate these transitions?
Presentations and discussion from Alan Bernstein (Founding Director of CIHR), Angela Crawley (Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars), Suzanne Fortier (President of NSERC), and Olga Stachova (COO, MITACS) will be introduced and moderated by David Kent (University of Cambridge and founder of http://scienceadvocacy.org).

Moderator
David Kent , Ph.D
CIHR Postdoctoral Fellow
University of Cambridge
Dr. David Kent is a CIHR postdoctoral fellow at the University of Cambridge, UK. He currently sits on the executive of the Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars and created the website The Black Hole which provides information on and analysis of issues related to science trainees in Canada. Previously, Dr. Kent served as joint coordinator for the UBC branch of the Let’s Talk Science Partnership Program (2004-07), an award winning national science outreach program. Dr. Kent grew up in St. John’s, NL, obtained a B.Sc. in Genetics and English Literature at the University of Western Ontario and completed his Ph.D. in blood stem cell biology at the University of British Columbia. He has been awarded scholarships or fellowships from the CIHR, NSERC, the Canadian Stem Cell Network, the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research, and the Lady Tata Memorial Trust. His current laboratory research focuses on normal blood stem cells and how changes in their regulation lead to cancers.

Dr. Angela Crawley
Vice-Chair of Operations
Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars
Dr. Angela M. Crawley received a B.Sc. in Microbiology and Immunology at McGill University (’99) and then earned a Ph.D.in the Dept. of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph. Her doctorate addressed the regulation of immune responses in pigs, for the eventual improvement of vaccination strategies. In 2004, Angela moved to Ottawa to work as postdoctoral fellow (PDF) in Dr. Jonathan B. Angel’s laboratory at the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI), partnered with the University of Ottawa. Angela is researching anti-viral mechanisms of human immune response in the context of HIV infection. Dr. Crawley held a postdoctoral fellowship award from the Ontario HIV Treatment Network (OHTN). She will begin her appointment as an Assistant Scientist at the OHRI and an Assistant Professor in April 2012 (to be funded by an OHTN Junior Investigator Development Award). While a postdoc, Angela was one of the founders of the uOttawa Faculty of Medicine Postdoc Association (2006, president 2007-09) and she also founded the uOttawa Postdoc Association (2009, president 2009-10). Angela was awarded a Postdoctoral Award of Excellence by uOttawa’s Faculty of Medicine (2007) recognizing scientific achievement and community involvement. Angela is also a member of a National Postdoc Stakeholders Working Group compiling recommended policies for the fair and equitable treatment of postdocs across Canada. She has attended some postdoc-related conferences including the 7th Annual Meeting of the National Postdoctoral Association (Houston, TX, USA, 2009) and, as a former president of the Canadian Association of Postdoctoral Scholars (CAPS), was an invited speaker for at the Annual Canadian Association of Graduate Studies meeting (Toronto, Nov. 2010). Angela is currently the Vice-Chair of Operations for CAPS.

Olga Stachova
Chief Operating Officer
Mitacs
Olga Stachova joined Mitacs in October 2000 and plays a key role in the organization's success. As Chief Operating Officer, her responsibilities include oversight of the overall operations and management, responsibility for delivery strategy for all Mitacs programs, their implementation, ongoing evaluation and monitoring, as well as allocation of Mitacs resources, human resources management and oversight of budgetary expenditures.

Olga has a Master’s Degree in English and Philosophy from the University of Constantine the Philosopher in Nitra, Slovakia. Prior to emigrating to Canada, she was Senior Project Manager at Management Partners, the leading company in the Slovak HR market. She was highly successful in her role of recruiting personnel for international organizations opening subsidiaries in Slovakia.

Olga is the recipient of the 2009 Business in Vancouver Forty under 40 Award.

Dr. Alan Bernstein
Founding President
CIHR 2000-2007
Dr. Alan Bernstein is the former executive director of the Global HIV Vaccine Enterprise, an international alliance of researchers and funders charged with accelerating the search for an HIV vaccine. Previously, he served as the founding president of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2000-2007), Canada’s national agency for the support of health research. After receiving his Ph.D. from the University of Toronto, and following postdoctoral work at the ICRF in London, Dr. Bernstein joined the Ontario Cancer Institute (1974-1985). In 1985, he joined the new Samuel Lunenfeld Research Institute in Toronto, was named its Associate Director in 1988 and then its Director of Research (1994-2000). Author of over 200 scientific publications, Dr. Bernstein has made extensive contributions to the study of stem cells, hematopoiesis and cancer. He chairs or is a member of advisory and review boards in Canada, the US, UK, and Australia. Dr. Bernstein has received numerous awards and honourary degrees for his contributions to science, including the 2007 Medaille du merite from the Institut de Recherche Clinique de Montreal, the 2008 Gairdner Wightman Award and the Order of Canada in 2002.

Dr. Suzanne Fortier
President
Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
Dr. Suzanne Fortier has served as President of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC) since January 2006. She was re-appointed to this position in November 2010. During her first five years, Dr. Fortier brought a renewed focus on excellence to the agency. Changes to NSERC’s funding structure ensure that the best researchers receive the funding they need to conduct world-class research. NSERC now engages more closely with industries to initiate research and development projects with academic partners. Dr. Fortier has also forged stronger relationships with other federal granting agencies and organizations to increase the number and scope of joint initiatives available to researchers. For example, a collaboration between National Research Council Canada, Business Development Bank of Canada and NSERC resulted in an ambitious new national initiative in nanotechnology.

Before her appointment to this position, Dr. Fortier held a number of senior research and administrative positions at Queen’s University. She joined Queen's University as an Assistant Professor in the Department of Chemistry in 1982 after holding research positions at the Medical Foundation of Buffalo and National Research Council Canada. She then served as Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, Acting Vice-Principal (Research), and Associate Dean in the School of Graduate Studies and Research before being appointed Vice-Principal (Research) in 1995. Most recently (2000-05), she was Vice-Principal (Academic).

Putting the Social in Canada’s Innovation Policy
The social sciences and human sciences matter. All of the big, "wicked" problems such as poverty, housing, immigration, security, diversity, climate change, at risk kids, Aboriginal issues, social determinants of health, to name a few, embrace issues related to social and human sciences. New solutions that address these issues are social innovations. But what's the role of social and human science research in fostering social innovations? How can the public, private, community and academic sectors collaborate on social innovation to benefit Canadians and Canadian communities?

Moderator
Graham Carr
President
Canadian Foundation of Humanities and Social Sciences
Graham Carr is President of the Canadian Federation for the Humanities and Social Sciences (CFHSS). Representing more than 85,000 faculty and students at 79 Canadian universities and 80 scholarly associations CFHSS is the national voice for university research and training in HSS disciplines. Carr is also Professor of History and Dean of Graduate Studies at Concordia University. He was previously Associate Dean of Research and Graduate Studies in the Faculty of Arts and Science. Trained at Queen's University in Kingston and the University of Maine at Orono, Carr is a specialist in North American cultural and public history. He has published in the fields of literary and music history, popular culture, cultural policy, cultural diplomacy and social memory studies. His current research focuses on Cold War cultural exchanges involving the United States, Canada and the Soviet Union.

A member of the executive of the Northeastern Association of Graduate Schools, Carr also serves on the Advisory Committee on Communications, Marketing and Programming for Canada's National Capital Commission.

Claudia Krywiak, Ph.D
Director, Partnership Development and Corporate Planning
Ontario Centres of Excellence
Claudia Krywiak is Director, Partnership Development and Corporate Planning, for the Ontario Centres of Excellence (OCE). OCE drives economic development by advancing the commercialization of publically-funded research outcomes, building industry-academic collaborations, and fostering the next generation of innovators and entrepreneurs. Claudia brings experience in developing successful partnerships to facilitate innovation and is interested in the development of new strategies that foster a culture of innovation and entrepreneurship and build partnerships between the private and not-for-profit sectors. Prior to joining OCE, Claudia held the position of Vice-President, Business Development (Ontario) at Mitacs, a national organization linking academia, industry and the public sectors to develop new tools to support the growth of Canada’s knowledge economy.

Claudia received her Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of Toronto in 2003 and worked for Bruker BioSpin, a world leader in Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) technology, where she supported the customer base in the Canadian market and developed working relationships with industrial and academic researchers in chemistry, biochemistry, pharmaceuticals, and materials science.

Allyson Hewitt
Advisor, Social Innovation & Director, Social Entrepreneurship
Social Innovation Generation
Allyson leads the social innovation programs at MaRS including the Ontario node of the national initiative, Social Innovation Generation (SiG@MaRS). This program supports social entrepreneurs and promotes social innovation under the headings Advise! Convene! Accelerate! SiG@MaRS has also recently announced a groundbreaking Centre for Impact Investing and is working of a series of Innovation Solutions Labs to tackle complex challenges. A life long social innovator, she most recently worked at SickKids where she led Safe Kids Canada and was a passionate advocate for children. She was also the Executive Director of Community Information Toronto where she initiated 211, providing streamlined access to human service information. For this work she received the Head of the Public Service Award and several other prestigious awards for meritorious public service.

Allyson has been leading and volunteering in not-for-profit organizations for over 25 years. Her academic background is in Criminology, Law, Public Affairs, Voluntary Sector Management and Organizational development including Leading Change.

David Phipps, Ph.D
Director, Research Services & Knowledge Exchange
York University/ResearchImpact
ResearchImpact
David is responsible for the management and support of research services (research grants and contracts, research ethics, technology and knowledge transfer); participates in strategic planning; negotiates research contracts and grants, manages research data and develops research performance measurements; ensures compliance with government policies and the University mandate.

2:50 pm - 3:10 pm
Coffee Break
3:10 pm - 4:40 pm

GPS Genome Canada - Genomics and Regulatory Science
This panel is the final event in Genome Canada’s 2011 GPS series: Where Genomics, Public Policy and Society Meet, dedicated to facilitating a dialogue between federal policymakers and researchers exploring issues at the interface of genomics and its ethical, environmental, economic, legal and social aspects (or GE3LS). Under the overarching theme of “Translational Genomics,” ad the range of activities that help “move genomics out of the laboratory and into the market, the clinic, or society at large,” the 2011 series previously considered intellectual property, as well as other means to optimize the impact of genomic research beyond commercialization.

This panel will turn its attention to “regulatory science” and the policy questions that arise at the interface of science and regulations when assessing scientific and technological applications that result from advances in genomics, from a safety, efficacy or quality lens and from the perspective of other relevant considerations. The panel discussion will begin with the presentation of a draft policy brief commissioned by Genome Canada and prepared Drs. Bruce Doern and Peter Phillips, two leading Canadian science policy scholars, followed by invited commentaries from policy-makers and private sector representatives. The audience will be invited to participate in a plenary discussion to help refine the policy brief.

Moderator
Karine Morin
Director, National GE3LS Program
Genome Canada

As Genome Canada’s Director, National GE3LS Program, Karine Morin oversees activities related to the ethical, economic, environmental, legal and social (GE3LS) aspects of genomics research. Prior to joining Genome Canada, Karine was a Senior Ethics Policy Advisor at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). She also conducted research on ethical, legal and social issues related to genomics at the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Science, Society and Policy.

Karine worked in the US for several years as the Director of Ethics Policy at the American Medical Association, and previously as an Ethics and Health Policy Associate at the American College of Physicians. Before leaving Canada, she worked for the Commission of Inquiry on the Blood System in Canada (Krever Commission). Karine holds a Masters in Law (LLM) from the University of Pennsylvania and is a graduate of McGill University School of Law, where she obtained a joint degree in civil (B.C.L.) and common law (LL.B). Over the years, she has published widely in bioethics and law, and has taught as an adjunct at several universities in the US and Canada.

Bruce G. Doern, Ph.D
Professor, Researcher, Author, Consultant
Carleton University, School of Public Policy and Administration (retired)
Dr. Bruce Doern is the author of over 70 books and monographs and numerous other articles and studies on Canadian and comparative public policy and regulatory governance in areas such as food and health, biotechnology, science and innovation policy, government labs; environmental policy; energy policy; and consumer policy. He has recently completed a book (with Prof. Michael Prince) on Three Bio-Realms: Biotechnology and the Governance of Food, Health and Life in Canada (University of Toronto Press, in press). He is presently the co-editor of How Ottawa Spends, the Carleton University School of Public Policy and Administration’s annual review of national priorities and fiscal policy (McGill-Queen’s University Press). He recently served as the CIBC Scholar-in-Residence at the Conference Board of Canada. He also served as Director of the Carleton Research Unit on Innovation, Science and Innovation (CRUISE) at Carleton University.

He is a consultant and advisor to numerous federal and provincial departments and to international bodies such as the OECD on innovation, science, regulatory and other governance issues. He was an advisor to the 2004 federal External Advisory Committee on Smart Regulation. As Emeritus Professor, he teaches global governance in the Politics Department at the University of Exeter in the UK and he is Distinguished Research Professor in the School of Public Policy and Administration at Carleton University.

Peter W.B. Phillips
Professor of Public Policy
Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School
University of Saskatchewan
Dr. Peter Phillips is Professor of Public Policy in the Johnson-Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Saskatchewan, in Saskatoon, Canada. He earned his Ph.D. in International Political Economy at the London School of Economics and practiced for 13 years as a professional economist and senior policy advisor in Canadian industry and government. At the University of Saskatchewan, he has held the Van Vliet Research Chair, created and held an NSERC-SSHRC Chair in Managing Technological Change, was a founding member and director of the virtual College of Biotechnology and was founding director of the graduate school of public policy.

He has had visiting appointments at the LSE, the OECD, the European University Institute and the University of Western Australia, is associate editor of AgBioForum, a leading on-line journal, was a member of the NAFTA Chapter 13 expert panel on GM maize in Mexico and was a founding member of the Canadian Biotechnology Advisory Committee. He has been a member of the Board of Directors of the Canadian Agri-food Policy Institute, the Estey Centre for the Study of Trade, Law and the Economy, and Ag West Bio Inc., which operates a biotech venture fund.

His current research focuses on governing transformative innovation, including regulation and policy, innovation systems, intellectual property management, trade policy and decision systems. He is co-lead and principal investigator of a $5.4 million Genome Canada project entitled Value Addition through Genomics and GE3LS (VALGEN) which runs 2009-13 and has been an applicant and investigator on more than 15 peer reviewed grants worth more than $150 million. He has been author or editor of eight books—his latest, Governing Transformative Technological Innovation: Who’s in charge? was published by Edward Elgar in 2007—and more than 70 journal articles and book chapters.

Dr. Vratislav Hadrava, Ph.D
Director, Regulatory Affairs
Pfizer Canada inc.
Vratislav Hadrava obtained his MD diploma at Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic and PhD degree from Department of Medicine, Division of Experimental Medicine at McGill University, Montreal, Canada. He completed his postgraduate research training at the Neurobiological Psychiatry Unit at Department of Psychiatry, McGill University. He has published articles in peer reviewed journals in the domain of hypertension, vascular smooth cell proliferation, mechanism of action of antidepressants and anxiolytics and clinical psychopharmacology.

Vratislav Hadrava initiated his career in pharmaceutical industry in 1995 at Pfizer Canada and has held positions of increasing responsibilities in areas of Medical Affairs, Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs.
He is currently Director, Regulatory Affairs at Pfizer Canada.

Vratislav Hadrava collaborated in numerous projects with clinical researchers from academia and Pfizer international, mainly in the area of mental health disorders. He acquired broad experience in clinical development and commercialization of new medicines and has developed a particular interest in the regulatory and pharmacovigilance aspects of pharmaceutical medicine.

Over the last years he has participated in several initiatives such as Health Canada/CIHR sponsored National Placebo Working Committee (2002-2004), Expert Advisory Committee on the Vigilance of Health Products (2007-2009) and Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network Advisory Committee (2009-2010).

Kwasi Nyarko, Ph.D
Regulatory Science Advisor
OFFICE OF POLICY AND INTERNATIONAL COLLABORATION
Health Canada
Kwasi A. Nyarko, Ph.D, is currently Regulatory Science Advisor, Office of Policy and International Collaboration, Biologics and Genetic Therapies Directorate, Health Canada. At Health Canada he has also worked with the Marketed Health Products Directorate with a unit responsible for post-market surveillance for biological products, including blood. Dr. Nyarko obtained his doctorate in Biomedical Sciences from the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. Kwasi has extensive experience in the development of science-based policies, guidance documents for industry, as well as development of national standards and regulations related to biologic and genetic therapies for human use. Dr. Nyarko is actively involved in the development of regulatory frameworks for a wide range of biological products regulated by BGTD such as the regulatory frameworks for vaccines, radiopharmaceuticals, pharmacogenomics, and plant molecular farming products. Dr. Nyarko has been involved in projects at the national and international levels and was instrumental in the development of the regulatory framework for subsequent entry biologics (biosimilars).

Erika van Neste
Innovation and Growth Policy Division
Strategic Policy Branch
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada

The Impact of Investments in Innovation Intermediaries
Governments and businesses around the world invest in innovation intermediaries that help a diverse range of firms of different ages, sizes, and endowments innovate and succeed. Heightened concern for transparency and accountability has meant that these enabling organizations and programs report on a range of metrics, possibly including their impact on client and member firms. In this panel we explore the state of the art of the assessment of innovation intermediary impact from a range of perspectives: Canadian and European, practitioner and academic, ICT and biopharmaceutical industries. Panel members will consider what is proven, possible, desirable, and to be avoided in terms of impact assessment methodologies, and the degree to which different constituencies seek, avoid, are provided with, ignore, and use assessments of intermediary impact. The objective is an improved understanding of an issue that is central to innovation intermediary purpose and the ability of intermediaries to contribute to the innovation systems of which they are a part.

Moderator
Nobina Robinson
CEO
Polytechnics Canada
Nobina Robinson was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Polytechnics Canada in May 2009. Polytechnics Canada is a national alliance of Canada’s leading research-intensive, publicly funded colleges and institutes of technology. Mrs. Robinson held progressive appointments in the federal government and non-profit sectors since 1990. She began her public service career in 1990 when she joined the Treasury Board Secretariat as a management trainee. Two years later, she became a Foreign Service Officer and was posted as a political officer to the Canadian Embassy in Havana from 1994 to 1997. From 1998 to 2002, Mrs. Robinson led FOCAL, a policy institute on Canada’s relations with the Americas. Before joining Polytechnics Canada, Mrs. Robinson was the Ottawa-based Senior Government Relations Advisor for Seneca College, responsible for federal advocacy for one of Canada's largest colleges. Mrs. Robinson has a B.A. from Amherst College, an M.A. from Oxford University (Commonwealth Scholar 1985-1988) and has pursued post-graduate studies at Yale University. In October 2010, Mrs. Robinson was named to the Expert Panel undertaking the Review of Federal Support to Research and Development.

Mario Thomas, Ph.D
Senior Vice President
Ontario Centres of Excellence
Dr. Mario Thomas is an accomplished senior executive with impressive international credentials in the management of innovation. With over 30 years in leadership roles directing corporate development and commercialization, he creates remarkable value for all stakeholders. Mario Thomas brings extensive experience filled with achievements driving successful development collaborations and financial ventures. Dr. Thomas was promoted to Senior Vice-President, Ontario Centres of Excellence in June 2010. Before being appointed Managing Director of the Centre for Commercialization of Research at the Ontario Centres of Excellence in April 2009, Dr. Thomas was Partner in the venture firm T2C2 Capital. His previous experiences include CEO and co-founders of two start-up companies; senior level positions in business development, marketing and scientist. He is the founding chairman of the International Commercialization Alliance. He holds a PhD in chemistry and a BSc from Université Laval in Quebec City, as well as a diploma in business administration from École des Hautes Études Commerciales of Université de Montréal. He is also a Chartered Director with the ASC designation in board governance. Dr. Thomas brings an in-depth background in board level functions both as a board member and in managing board relations as an executive.

Margaret Dalziel
Associate Professor, School of Managment, University of Ottawa
& VP Research of The Evidence Network
Margaret Dalziel is an associate professor of innovation and entrepreneurship at the Telfer School of Management of the University of Ottawa, and VP Research of The Evidence Network. Margaret joined the University of Ottawa in 2001 with 15 years experience in technology development and research management at McGill University and the Canadian Space Agency. Her current research focuses on the assessment of interventions to promote innovation, and on describing the architecture of the economy in terms of inter-industry relations. With generous support from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, her research has resulted in some 60 articles including publications in academic journals such as Research Policy, the Journal of Engineering and Technology Management, and the British Journal of Management. During 2008-2009 Margaret was a visiting professor at Zhejiang University in Hangzhou, China.

Raine Hermans, Ph.D
Head, Unit for Strategic Intelligence
Tekes (Finland)
Raine Hermans is the Head of Unit for Strategic Intelligence since January 2010. He started with Tekes as a Director of Regional Networks at Tekes in September 2007. The Regional Networks consist of 14 technology development departments all over in Finland. One of his most important future challenges is to coordinate synchronizing the distinctive regional strategies together and with the one of Tekes’. Raine acted as the visiting professor (managerial economics of biotechnology) at the Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University, Illinois USA, from 2006 to 2007. Raine has also led a group of multidisciplinary corporate and industry analysts for several years with Etlatieto Ltd and ETLA, the Research Institute of the Finnish Economy. Raine has a Ph.D. degree in industrial engineering and management (Helsinki University of Technology) and a master’s degree in economics (University of Helsinki). He has published several articles in international journals and edited academic books. The most recent articles are related to technology management and economic forecasting.

Natalie E. Dakers
CEO
Centre for Drug Research and Development
Natalie E. Dakers is a leading figure in the Canadian biotechnology industry and currently serves as the Chief Executive Officer of the Centre for Drug Research and Development (CDRD), an innovative organization in British Columbia with a mandate to address the commercialization gap between early-stage technologies arising out of university-based research and investment opportunities. Under Ms. Dakers’ leadership, CDRD has signed affiliation agreements with major research institutions in Canada and forged important strategic relationships with Pfizer Canada and Genome British Columbia. With its over 20,000 square feet in specialized lab space and more than $12 million invested in state-of-the-art equipment, CDRD has attracted over 70 employees and 260 investigators. To date, CDRD has raised and secured approximately $74 million in funding and was named a Centre of Excellence for Commercialization and Research (CECR). Ms. Dakers is active in a number of business and scientific organizations, including Past Chair of BC Biotech (now LifeSciences British Columbia), the association supporting and representing the province’s biotech, medical device and life sciences community. Currently, Ms. Dakers is a board member of the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), BIOTECanada and the International Science and Technology Partnership Canada (ISTP Canada). Previously, Ms. Dakers also served on the Boards of Genome Canada, Genome BC, and the Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research. Ms. Dakers is an Adjunct Professor in UBC’s Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences and a member of the Council of Canadian Academies’ Expert Panel on Business Innovation. Ms. Dakers received a Peak Award for Performance and Excellence in 2004. In 2009, Ms. Dakers was the recipient of BIOTECanada’s Gold Leaf Award for Industry Leadership.

Using Science Policy to Improve Health Outcomes in the North
The Canadian North has become a focus for politicians and researchers alike within recent years. This increased attention has not only helped to reignite Canadians’ awareness of the North, it has also shed light on certain disparities. Many Northerners, especially Aboriginal people, suffer from poorer health in comparison to other Canadians. This panel will explore the current health challenges in the North, and discuss how science policy can be used to help improve the situation. Overall, the goals of this panel are to:

Raise awareness about health issues in the North and the challenge of addressing those issues
Show how building up the scientific presence within the North will help to improve health outcomes among Northerners
Reiterate the notion that scientific work cannot take place in isolation – rather it must be a collaborative activity which is engaged in by many different, yet inter-connected, communities
Reaffirm the need for governments, communities, and academia to work together.

Moderator
Sandra Lister
Manager, Science Policy Coordination
Health Canada
Sandra Lister is the Manager of the Science Policy Coordination Unit (SPCU) within the Policy, Planning and Coordination Division of Health Canada's Strategic Policy Branch. The SPCU provides senior management with strategic analysis and advice on complex, horizontal and multi-dimensional S&T and science policy issues. Ms. Lister oversees the secretariat to the departmental Director General Science Committee and the Northern Health Evidence Sub-Working Group, which is responsible for leading the Health Portfolio’s contribution to the Northern Strategy. Additionally, Ms. Lister is an active member on several working groups which support the Federal S&T Strategy, the Federal Integrated Northern S&T Strategy (FINeST) and the Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS).

Dr. Pertice Moffitt
Nurse Educator
Aurora College
Dr. Pertice Moffitt is a nurse educator in the undergraduate program at Aurora College, Yellowknife Campus, Yellowknife, NT; an Adjunct Professor with Dalhousie University; and, as well, she also teaches graduates students at Athabasca University. Additionally, Dr. Moffitt is the Manager of the Health Research Programs for Aurora Research Institute at the North Slave Research Centre in Yellowknife. Dr. Moffitt's research interests are with Circumpolar Health, Cultural Diversity and Women's Health utilising the qualitative methods of ethnography, photovoice and fourth generation evaluation.

Dr. Kue Young
Professor
Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto
Dr. Kue Young is a professor in the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto and TransCanada Chair in Aboriginal Health & Well-being. He is President of the International Network for Circumpolar Health Research and a former co-chair of the Arctic Council’s Human Health Expert Group. Much of Dr. Young's professional career has been devoted to northern and Aboriginal health research, with a major focus on the prevention of diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. In 2010 he was appointed Member of the Order of Canada for "his contributions and commitment to advancing the health and well-being of Indigenous peoples, notably as a leading scholar in the field of Aboriginal health research.”

Christopher Cornish
Regional Director, Policy, Planning, and Evaluation
Health Canada - Northern Region
Christopher Cornish is the regional Director of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation for Health Canada’s Northern Region. Northern Region is responsible for delivering on Health Canada’s mandate in the three northern territories, managing and administering health promotion and disease prevention programs, the Non-Insured Health Benefits program for First Nations and Inuit, and the Territorial Health System Sustainability Initiative. Northern Region also serves as the departmental link on circumpolar health and research activities and plays an instrumental role in supporting the Government of Canada’s Northern Strategy. Prior to joining Health Canada, Mr. Cornish served in various policy roles at Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.

Sarah Kalhok Bourque
Manager, Northern Science and Contaminants Research
Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada
Sarah Kalhok Bourque is the Manager of Northern Science and Contaminants Research with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. In this capacity, Sarah Kalhok Bourque manages the Northern Contaminants Program (NCP), established in 1991. Prior to this, Sarah Kalhok Bourque was part of the core team that developed Canada’s Program for the International Polar Year (IPY), which was designed along policy-relevant themes of “Climate change impacts and adaptation” and “Health and well-being of Northern communities”, and she was subsequently Manager and Science Manager of the Government of Canada Program for IPY. Now based in Ottawa, she used to call the North her home while working for the Aurora Research Institute in Inuvik, Northwest Territories. Her perspective on northern/Arctic science and policy comes from program experience at the local, national and international level.

4:40 pm - 6:00 pm
Sponsor Showcase & Networking
6:00 pm - 7:00 pm
Keynote Panel - Science and Politics in Canada
This is a non-partisan and cross party discussion, among former scientists and current politicians, on the interface between science and government. The panel will discuss:

The barriers and potential solutions for greater interaction between the scientific and political communities in Canada
How to encourage and facilitate the greater participation of scientists in politics.

Introductions
Pierre Meulien, Ph.D
President and CEO
Genome Canada
Pierre Meulien was appointed President and CEO of Genome Canada in 2010. Prior to this appointment, Dr. Meulien served as Chief Scientific Officer for Genome British Columbia from 2007 to 2010 where he promoted the organization’s ongoing scientific strategy, focusing on the science of genomics, proteomics and bioinformatics within the larger realm of biotechnology and life sciences. Facilitating the translation of genome based technologies into end user communities across many life science sectors was also a key responsibility.

From 2002 to 2007, Dr. Meulien served as the founding CEO of the Dublin Molecular Medicine Centre (now Molecular Medicine Ireland) which linked the three medical schools and six teaching hospitals in Dublin to build a critical mass in molecular medicine and translational research. The Centre managed the Euro 45 Million “Program for Human Genomics” financed by the Irish government and was responsible for coordinating the successful application for the first Wellcome Trust funded Clinical Research Centre to be set up in Ireland.

For over 20 years, Dr. Meulien has managed expert research teams with a number of organizations, including Aventis Pasteur in Toronto (Senior Vice President of R&D), and in Lyon, France (Director of Research). He also spent seven years with the French biotechnology company Transgene in Strasbourg, France as a research scientist and part of the management team. Dr. Meulien’s academic credentials include a PhD from the University of Edinburgh and a post-doctoral appointment at the Institut Pasteur in Paris.

Marc Garneau
Former Astronaut
MP for Westmount Ville-Marie, Quebec
Marc Garneau has served his country his entire professional career, beginning with the Canadian Navy and then as an astronaut and President of the Canadian Space Agency , and now in political life. Garneau resigned from the Canadian Space Agency to run under the Liberal banner in Vaudreuil–Soulanges in 2006. After the last federal elections, he remained very involved in politics and played a determining role in the Liberal Renewal Commission by drafting its Science and Technology position paper. He also helped draft a number of resolutions aimed at clarifying the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, the resolution of fiscal unbalance and the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol.

Hon. Hélène LeBlanc
MP for LaSalle-Emard, Science and Technology Critic
Hélène is an agronomist and project manager for the Conseil d’assainissement et d’aménagement du ruisseau Lacorne.
Hélène has taught French in Vancouver and Ottawa and was an interpreter/guide for the Canada Museums of Science and Technology Corporation in Ottawa. She was also an assistant to persons suffering from Alzheimers for the organization Baluchon Alzheimer and an agro-environment officer with the Fédération de l’Union des producteurs agricoles de l’Outaouais-Laurentides.
Hélène has a Bachelor’s degree in education from the University of Ottawa and a Bachelor of Science degree in agriculture and environment from McGill University.

Dr. Kellie Leitch
MP for Simcoe Grey
Dr. Kellie Leitch is the Member of Parliament for Simcoe-Grey and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development Canada, and to the Minister of Labour. Prior to her election on May 2, 2011, Dr. Leitch was an orthopaedic paediatric surgeon at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto. Dr. Leitch was also an Associate Professor at the University of Toronto, Chair of the Ivey Centre for Health Innovation and Leadership, and Director of the Health Sector MBA program at the Richard Ivey School of Business, University of Western Ontario. Dr. Leitch received the Order of Ontario in 2010 for her work advocating for children. Dr. Leitch was selected as one of Canada's Top 40 Under 40 for her work in both medicine and business in 2005. Dr. Leitch previously served as Chair of the Expert Panel for the Children's Fitness Tax Credit in 2006, which made recommendations to the Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, regarding the best ways to implement the tax credit designed to encourage health and fitness among Canadian children and youth. In 2008, Dr. Leitch authored the report entitled: "Reaching for the Top: A Report by the Advisor on Healthy Children & Youth". The report is a "call to action" for government and industry on key issues affecting Canadian children and youth.
Dr. Leitch earned her Doctorate of Medicine from the University of Toronto in 1994, MBA from Dalhousie University in 1998, completed the Orthopaedic Surgery Residency Program in 2001 at the University of Toronto, and became a Fellow of Paediatric Orthopaedics at the Children's Hospital of Los Angeles/University of Southern California in 2002.

As a volunteer, Dr. Leitch served as a council member on the NRC (National Research Council of Canada), a Board member of Genome Canada, a Director on the YMCA (GTA) board of directors, Vice President of CANFAR (Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research), and is the founder of The Sandbox Project. In addition, Dr. Leitch hosts an annual golf tournament to raise funds for the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation.

Reza Moridi, Ph.D
Ontario MPP - Richmond Hill
An award-winning scientist, engineer, educator, business leader and community activist who has lived in Richmond Hill since 1991, Reza Moridi was first elected to the Ontario Legislative Assembly in 2007. Upon his election, Reza was appointed by Premier Dalton McGuinty as the Parliamentary Assistant to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. He was also appointed to the Cabinet Committee on Economy, Environment and Resources Policy. Prior to his election, Reza was the Vice-President and Chief Scientist of the Radiation Safety Institute of Canada. His 17 year career at this Institute provided him with a thorough understanding of the nuclear industry of Canada as well as the application of radiation and nuclear materials in a large variety of industry and health care sectors. Over the years, Reza has contributed significantly to the understanding of nuclear materials, radiation and radiation safety by the public, students, educators and workers in Canada. In recognition of his contributions, the Canadian Nuclear Society presented Reza with the Education and Communication Award in 2001.

In recognition of Reza’s outstanding contributions to the profession of Health Physics (radiation protection), the US Health Physics Society presented Reza with the Fellow Award in 2002. For his original contribution to physics and engineering, Reza was elected as Fellow of the UK Institute of Physics (1986) and Fellow of the UK Institution of Engineering and Technology (1992). Education, energy, innovation, environment, health and prosperity are key issues of interest to Reza.

7:00 pm - 9:00 pm
Genome Canada Reception - Induction of 2011 Members to the Canadian Science and Engineering Hall of Fame
Friday, November 18, 2011
7:30 am - 8:30 am
Continental Breakfast
8:30 am - 8:40 am
Opening Statement of the Day: International Year of Chemistry

Bernard West, Ph.D
President/Chair of the Board
Westworks Consulting/Ontario BioAuto Council
Bernard West holds a BSc and a PhD in chemical engineering from the University of Manchester where he also taught for 6 years. In 2008 he was President and CEO of CANSOLV Technologies of Montreal, and was previously President and COO, Canada Colors and Chemicals Limited. Prior to that, he had 30 years of experience in the chemical industry with Rhone-Poulenc, Imperial Oil [ Esso ] and Polymer Corporation.

Bernard has also been very active in industry associations and industry-government bodies; member of the Board of the Canada’s Chemical Producers Association (Chair 1995–1997), Chair of The Chemical Institute of Canada, Chair of the Society of Chemical Industry–Canadian Section, member of the Board of the National Association of Chemical Distributors (Washington, D.C.).

He is currently; Chair of the Board of Ontario BioAuto Council, Co-Chair of the Sustainable Chemistry Alliance, Co-Chair of the Canadian Green Chemistry and Engineering Network, and Chair of the Advisory Board of the Institute for Chemical Process and Environmental Technologies in the National Research Council of Canada. He is an associate member of the IUPAC Committee on Chemical Industry representing Canada and a member of the board of Life Sciences Ontario.

8:40 am - 10:10 am
Drivers of Innovation in the Chemical-Related Industry Sector
In its 2011 Brief to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, the Partnership Group for Science and Engineering (PAGSE) states that “a highly skilled workforce is an essential component of the innovation pipeline. Canada has done well to improve its capacity to train the next generation of researchers and innovators. Clearly we are on our way to building the next generation of cutting-edge researchers that will fuel the innovation pipeline. However employment prospects for highly skilled workers are bleak. A large part of the problem is that businesses in Canada invest very little in research and development (R&D), so they have little need to hire highly skilled workers. Canadian graduates have trouble finding good jobs, especially R&D jobs in industry”.
This session will explore the factors that drive industrial research and development in several of Canada’s largest chemical-related trade sectors. What are the strengths and weaknesses of our national and provincial science, economic and other related policies and regulations that attract or hinder research investments in Canada? Does research have to be carried out in Canada, in all cases, in order for the country to benefit? Are our industry / academic partnerships and commercial centres working - and producing results?
Moderator

Avrim Lazar, Ph.D

CEO & President
Forest Products Association of Canada
Avrim Lazar is President & CEO of the Forest Products Association of Canada, since Jan. 1, 2002 and he is chair of the Advisory Committee on Paper and Wood Products (ACPWP) to the United Nations. Mr. Lazar has held senior policy positions in the government of Canada in the Ministries of Justice, Agriculture, Environment and Human Resource Development. During this period he was responsible for national policy in areas as diverse as climate change, biodiversity, child poverty, employment insurance and labor force training.

Mr. Lazar was Chair of the Committee of the Whole of the Second UN Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity in 1995. He also chaired the National Business Association Roundtable and is the Past-President of the International Council of Forest and Paper Associations (ICFPA). Mr. Lazar taught high school in Vancouver and Zambia from 1969 to 1973. Over the years, Mr. Lazar has given many courses in the graduate studies programs at the University of Ottawa and Carleton University. Mr. Lazar holds degrees in science and education, including a B.Sc (1968) from McGill University, a B.Ed (1970) and a PhEd in Ed (1976) from the University of Ottawa.

Craig Crawford
President & CEO
Ontario BioAuto Council
Craig has served on numerous government and industry committees and non-profit boards that have advocated support for biobased industries in both Canada and the United States. He has acted as a consultant to the federal and Ontario governments on the bioeconomy and wrote a framework for developing biobased industries in Canada. He has been actively involved in identifying research and business opportunities in the new bioeconomy for more than a decade.

Craig is currently the President and CEO of the Ontario BioAuto Council. The Council’s vision is to make Ontario a global leader in the manufacture of automobile parts, construction materials and packaging from biological feedstocks. Its mission is to unite Ontario’s largest economic sectors (i.e. agriculture, forestry, oil, chemical, manufacturing and automotive), research community and government around viable strategies aimed at building a province-wide bioeconomy.

David Yake, Ph.D
Director - Corporate Process Innovation, Research & Business Development
DuPont Canada
David Yake has more than 31 years of global R&D, business, sales and marketing leadership with DuPont. He received his MS and Ph.D in Chemical Engineering from Iowa State University in 1980. He served six years with DuPont in Asia as regional business and marketing manager and director of the company’s Chemical Solutions business, leveraging broad based open innovation across the region to establish a sustainable growth platform. During the last five years David has lived in Canada and led the Research and Business Development Centre in Kingston, Ontario, and the DuPont Center for Process Innovation - a global corporate leveraged technology based business that specializes in developing and scaling-up technology solutions to commercial level. In Canada, the organization’s key role is to identify key growth opportunities and collaborate with global businesses to commercialize innovative solutions that meet market needs.

Dave Collyer
CEO & President
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
David Collyer was appointed President of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) on September 15th, 2008, after serving as President and Country Chair for Shell in Canada. In his current position, Mr. Collyer is responsible for leading CAPP’s activities in education, communications and policy / regulatory advocacy on behalf of its members representing over 90% of the upstream petroleum production in Canada.

During his 30 year career tenure with Shell, Mr. Collyer held a broad range of technical, business and senior leadership roles. These included positions in conventional oil and gas, oil sands, marketing and transportation and downstream commercial marketing, as well as cross-business roles such as strategy and planning, communications and sustainable development. He also participated in a two year Executive Exchange assignment with the federal government in Ottawa.

Mr. Collyer holds a petroleum engineering degree and an MBA from the University of Alberta, and belongs to a range of professional affiliations including the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists, and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) as well as the Society of Petroleum Engineers (SPE). He has also been a member of a number of not-for-profit boards.

10:10 am - 10:30 am
Coffee Break
10:30 am - 12:00 pm
How do we build resilient communities in the face of climate change?
The science is complex, the picture is daunting, the impacts all too real. A global challenge, climate change is creating environmental, economic and social upheaval, particularly in coastal and northern communities.
What strategies are available to those communities to mitigate and adapt to climate change and its impact on their ecosystems? Are there governance and policy hurdles hindering the development and implementation of such strategies? Can and will local actions make a difference? As part of the conference’s “Exploring the True North Strong and Free: Reflections on Northern Science Policy” theme, this panel will engage in an inspiring conversation on community activism, sustainability and resilience in Canada’s northern communities.

Moderator
James Baxter
Founding Editor and Publisher
iPolitics
Over the past 25 years, Baxter has been an award-winning sportswriter, political journalist, bureau chief and editorial writer. A third-generation public affairs journalist, Baxter’s work covering politics, first in Ottawa and then in Alberta, earned him a prestigious Nieman Fellowship at Harvard University in 2008, where his studies focused on the future of media businesses and the role of the press in democracy. Born and raised in Ottawa, he holds degrees in international relations, journalism, and media administration. He lives in Ottawa with his wife, Sarah, and three young children, coaches football and soccer, and is an exuberant skier.

Frances Abele
Academic Director of the Carleton Centre for Community Innovation
Professor of the School of Public Policy and Administration, Carleton University
Dr. Abele has written widely on Canadian public policy and the northern political economy, publishing over 80 books, articles, book chapters and technical reports. With a northern research career stretching back thirty years, she is the author of an oft-consulted study of employment training in the Northwest Territories (Abele 1989) and numerous articles and technical reports on northern economic and political issues. She is an expert on federal northern policy, publishing regularly on this theme, and on the implications for the federation of governance innovations pursuant to the modern treaties. Abele is co-author and co-editor of the first comprehensive examination of northern development policy to include a balanced complement of authors from northern and southern Canada (Abele, Courchene, St-Hilaire and Seidle, 2009). As deputy director of research for the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in the 1990s, Abele was responsible for the Commission's research on the North, and portions of the work on governance and economy. She has worked in partnership with northern organizations in Canada and abroad, ranging from the North-West Academy of Public Administration, Murmansk, Russia to community governments in Canada, where she currently collaborates with the Hamlet of Igloolik and community partners in Deline.

Gordon McBean
Professor, Joint Appointment with Geography and Political Science
& Research Chair at the Institute of Catastrophic Loss Reduction, University of Western Ontario
Professor, Joint Appointment with Geography and Political Science
Dr. Gordon McBean received his B.Sc. in Physics and Ph.D. in Oceanography from the University of British Columbia and a M.Sc. in Meteorology from McGill University. He was a scientist in Environment Canada from 1970 to 1988 when he was appointed Professor and Chair of the Atmospheric Science Program at the University of British Columbia. In 1992, he was appointed Head, Department of Oceanography. From 1994 to 2000, he was Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for the Meteorological Service of Environment Canada. He was appointed to his present position in July 2000. Dr. McBean's research interests are in atmospheric and climate sciences, ranging in scope from the natural sciences of the phenomena to the policies of governments and responses of people to them. He is undertaking new research on the changing climate and weather systems in the Arctic, and investigating the role of science in changing government policies. An area of interest is the changing occurrence of extreme weather events with climate change, their influence on public systems and strategies for adaptation. In addition to his activities at UWO, Dr. McBean is active nationally and internationally. He is Chair of the Board of Trustees of the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences and a member of the scientific committee for the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, the Board of the International Institute for Sustainable Development, the Northern S&T Committee, and the Canadian Committee for the International Polar Year. He was a lead author for the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. Earlier in his career he participated in the first Polar Experiment planning meeting and as chair of the World Climate Research Programme helped create the Arctic Climate System Study (ACSYS). He has received the Patterson Medal for distinguish contributions to meteorology by a Canadian and is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, the Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society and the American Meteorological Society.

Ian Mauro
Canada Research Chair in Human Dimensions of Environmental Change
Mount Allison University
Ian Mauro is a Canada Research Chair in "human dimensions of environmental change" at Mount Allison University, in New Brunswick. He is both a researcher and filmmaker, with a PhD in environmental science, and his work focuses on hunter, farmer and fisher knowledge regarding environmental change, specifically issues related to food security and global warming. As part of his doctorate, he co-directed "Seeds of Change" (www.seedsofchangefilm.org), a highly controversial film that was banned from being released by the University of Manitoba, and created one of the largest academic freedom battles in Canada. For his postdoctorate, Mauro teamed up with Zacharias Kunuk and Igloolik Isuma Productions to develop "Inuit Knowledge and Climate Change", the world's first Inuktitut language film on the topic. The film is available for free on our website (www.isuma.tv/ikcc). This upcoming year, Mauro will be collaborating with Sheila Watt-Cloutier - acclaimed Inuk climate change advocate and Nobel Prize nominee - who will be working on her forthcoming book as a Visiting Scholar at Mount Allison. Ian can be contacted through email at imauro@mta.ca.

Jamal Shirley
Manager, Research Design and Policy Development
Iqaluit Research Centre, Nunavut Research Institute
Jamal Shirley is Manager of Research Design at the Nunavut Research Institute in Iqaluit. He grew up in Rankin Inlet, Nunavut, and has lived in Iqlauit since 1997. An advisor to researchers working in the social, natural and biological disciplines in Nunavut, Jamal contributes to research design, data collection, analysis, and public outreach for a wide range of studies. He has served on the advisory board for the Arctic Storm Studies Project, and as a member of Canada’s National Committee for International Polar Year. As a member of the Nunavut Government’s Sustainable Development Advisory Group Jamal contributes to the development of policy and strategies relating to resource development, climate change adaptation, land use planning, and wildlife management in Nunavut. Jamal also works directly with Nunavut community groups to develop research proposals and identify funding and partnerships.

What do some of the fastest growing S&T Firms in Canada think about Canada's Innovation Policy?
The policy community has no shortage of indicators and creative ideas to support more innovative economies and high quality services to and opportunities for Canadians. The challenge, rather, is to determine the right mix of indicators to monitor for a desired outcome in a particular sector, and the right approach to policy development and implementation for the same sector outcomes. This panel will set out to identify the most influential policies and gaps in policy for fast-growing S&T firms in Canada. The discussion would explore issues of incentives, trade, HQP, innovation strategy and partnerships as they are influenced by policy and implemented through management practice. The panelists will be invited to explore one or two of these issues to a greater depth that speaks to specific policy and management linkages.
The panelists represent some of the fastest growing S&T companies in Canada, moderated by Dr. Charles Davis, Research Chair in Media Management and Entrepreneurship at Ryerson University, and of the Innovation Systems Research Network.

Moderator
Charles Davis
Professor
Ryerson Unversity's School of Radio and Television Arts
Charles Davis is a professor in Ryerson Unversity's School of Radio and Television Arts (Faculty of Communication and Design) and is cross-appointed with the Entrepreneurship and Strategy Department in the Ted Rogers School of Management. He currently teaches and conducts research on management and policy in industries that produce experience goods - with special interest in innovation and new product development in the software and content layers of mediated creative industries. He is currently involved in research projects on media product innovation, media labour, media industry clusters, audience responses to media offerings, corporate governance of innovation, and digital entrepreneurship. His recent graduate and undergraduate teaching includes courses in media management, new product development, political economy of media industries, audience analysis, innovation in experience-producing industries, cultural economy, and media entrepreneurship. He teaches in Ryerson's MA in Media Production program, in the Ryerson/York MA/PhD program in Communication and Culture, and in Ryerson's MBA/MSc in Management of Technology and Innovation program.

David Arthurs
President
Hickling Arthurs Low
Dr. David Arthurs is the President of Hickling Arthurs Low (HAL). David specializes in economic analysis, policy development, and strategic planning for public sector science and technology organizations. David has a BASc in Mechanical Engineering from the University of Waterloo, an MBA from the University of Ottawa, and a PhD from the School of Business at Queen's University

Curtis VanWalleghem, MBA, BEng, PMP
Chief Executive Officer
Hydrostor Inc
Mr. VanWalleghem currently leads energy storage start-up Hydrostor Inc. Curtis has spent the last 10 years helping companies set and execute on their strategy. Prior to Hydrostor, he was Sr. Manger in Deloitte's Corporate Strategy Consulting Practice where he advised some of the top energy companies in Canada and around the globe. He has also held positions at Bruce Power, Celestica Inc, and CIBC.

Nicolas Morgan
Vice-President, Business Development and Marketing
Morgan Solar
Nicolas Morgan is a co-founder of Morgan Solar, and leads the company’s Business Development and Marketing efforts. He holds a Bachelor of Social Science in Anthropology and a post-graduate degree in Applied Information Technology. Before coming to Morgan Solar at the start of 2008, Nicolas spent two years in Spain as a senior manager for FON Technologies, a Web 2.0 start-up. At FON, Nicolas coordinated the activities of business development teams in Europe, North America and Asia. Prior to this, Nicolas worked at Ernst & Young as a risk management and business process advisor to the Ontario electricity sector.

Glen Martin
President and COO
Pod Generating Group
Glen has over 20 years experience in early-phase project development in space and high technology sectors. Most recently he served as co-founder and Senior Adviser in Business Development at ProtoStar Limited, a satellite operator focused on direct-to-home satellite television services in Asia. Prior to co-founding Pod Generating Group, Glen worked with NASA, Motorola, Hughes and Raytheon on advanced space systems and international business development. He previously worked for McDonnell Douglas Space Systems Company, Boeing Canada and Rolls-Royce Canada. He holds a Bachelor of Technology in Aerospace Engineering from Ryerson University and an MBA from the University of Southern California.

Reaching out with Big Science
The public often learns of developments in science in the media distilled from press offices at peer-reviewed journals or universities. In a few cases, research institutions such as the Mayo Clinic and CERN have also developed a reputation for being seen as authoritative sources of science news and information for the public. In recent years, the Canadian research landscape has grown to feature a number of ‘big science’ facilities. These institutions, such as TRIUMF, Ocean Networks Canada, the Canadian Light Source, SNOLab and the Perimeter Institute, conduct research at the forefront of science – often at the convergence of science disciplines and with a scope and scale that is larger than traditional research institutions in government or the academy. In addition to research, all of these laboratories also engage in a number of forms of public engagement and outreach, ranging from media relations to classroom education. In a media landscape where science reporting is becoming increasingly fractured, what role do Canada’s big science facilities have in being sources of science news, information and education?

Moderator
Matthew Dalzell
Communications Coordinator
Canadian Light
Matthew Dalzell is the Communications Coordinator and Staff Writer at the Canadian Light Source, Canada’s national synchrotron facility in Saskatoon. His role includes media relations, strategic communications and telling stories about the science done at the CLS as an embedded science writer. One of the items on his ‘bucket list’ was fulfilled soon after starting at the CLS in 2004: appearing on CBC radio’s Quirks and Quarks. Matt earned a M.Sc. in Geology, specializing in palaeontology, as well as bachelor degrees in Science and Education, all from the University of Saskatchewan. He taught high school in Saskatoon and rural Saskatchewan, and spent several years on full-time service with the Royal Canadian Navy as a reserve staff officer and instructor. Matt is also chair of lightsources.org, an international communications collaboration of synchrotrons and other high-energy light source facilities.

John Matlock
Director, External Relations & Public Affairs
Perimeter Institute
John Matlock is the Director of External Relations and Public Affairs, Perimeter Institute for Theoretical physics. John and his team are responsible for a wide range of Perimeter Institute's strategic communications and relationships. Since 2004, John has led a wide range of activities, including special events with Stephen Hawking, the award winning "Quantum Tamers" documentary (viewable in sixty countries), and the successful "Quantum to Cosmos: Ideas for the Future" festival, reaching over one million on-site, online and via television. Prior to joining Perimeter, John was an award winning news producer in both the CTV and CBC news organizations. In transferring his skills to science communications, he has guided others in a successful "rule of three" - tied to content, conversation and coordination.

Penny Park
Executive Director
Science Media Centre of Canada
Penny Park is the Executive Director of the Science Media Centre of Canada, with extensive hands-on experience in radio and television science journalism. From 1980 to 1995, she worked as a producer and senior producer with Quirks and Quarks, the award-winning weekly science program on CBC radio. Since 1995, Penny has been with the Discovery Channel, where she helped develop the show now called Daily Planet. Originally from Montreal, she first earned a BA from the University of New Brunswick, studying linguistics, followed by a B.Sc (honours) in biology from the University of Guelph, graduating there in 1980.

Tim Meyer, Ph.D
Head of Strategic Planning & Communications
TRIUMF
Dr. Timothy I. Meyer is Head of Strategic Planning and Communications at TRIUMF, Canada’s national laboratory for particle and nuclear physics. He coordinates interactions with elected officials, stakeholders, the general public, and the media. Tim oversaw preparation and successful approval of the laboratory’s five-year plan 2010-2015 and played a role in Canada’s national discussions about producing medical isotopes using accelerators. He came to TRIUMF in late 2007 from the U.S. National Academies in Washington, D.C., where he served as an expert in science and public policy as a senior program officer at the Board on Physics and Astronomy. Dr. Meyer joined the U.S. National Academies after earning his Ph.D. in experimental particle physics from Stanford University. Tim has been recognized for excellence in public-policy analysis and communication strategies. In 2010, he chaired a strategic communications review of the U.S. DOE’s premier plasma and fusion science laboratory managed by Princeton University. When not working, Tim reads pulp fiction on his Kindle, plays volleyball, and follows his gourmet-chef wife around the kitchen to wash the dishes.

Jay Ingram
Science Broadcaster and Writer
Jay Ingram was the host of Discovery Channel Canada’s Daily Planet from the first episode in January, 1995 to June, 2011. Daily Planet is the only hour-long, prime-time daily science show in the world. Prior to joining Discovery, Jay hosted CBC radio’s national science show, Quirks and Quarks, from 1979 to 1992. During that time he won two ACTRA awards, one for best host, and several Canadian Science Writers’ awards. He wrote and hosted two CBC radio documentary series and short radio and television science stories for a variety of programs. He was a contributing editor to Owl magazine for ten years, and wrote a weekly science column in the Toronto Star for twelve. Jay has also written eleven books - which have been translated into twelve languages - and is working on more.

Jay has received the Sandford Fleming medal from the Royal Canadian Institute for his efforts to popularize science, the Royal Society’s McNeil medal for the Public Awareness of Science and the Michael Smith award from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. He is a Distinguished Alumnus of the University of Alberta, has received five honorary doctorates and is a member of the Order of Canada.

12:00 pm - 12:45 pm
Lunch
12:45 pm - 12:55 pm
Luncheon Address - PIPSC

Gary Corbett
President
Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada
Gary Corbett brings over 30 years of experience in the public and private sectors to his role as President of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada (PIPSC). Mr. Corbett represents 60,000 members including more than 23,000 scientists, researchers and regulators who work in government departments, agencies and laboratories.

A former employee of Natural Resources Canada, Gary worked as a scientist conducting operational research in the coal mining industry in Cape Breton. Relocating his family to Ottawa following the close of the coal industry in 1998, he focused his attention on policy development as it pertains to the role of public science and evidence-based decision-making.

As National Vice-President and then President of the Institute, Gary Corbett has ensured that PIPSC is actively engaged in the search for solutions to the challenges facing Canadian science. He initiated and chaired successful Science Policy Symposiums in 2007 and 2010. Mr. Corbett is also strongly committed to advocating on behalf of Canada's public science and its public scientists.
1:00 pm - 1:30 pm
Keynote Luncheon Address
1:30 pm - 3:30 pm
Examining the Prospects of a Canadian Science Policy Centre

The original agenda was published in the CSPC website, follow it here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/canadian-science-policy-conference

Know your Users, Match their Needs!

rebecca — 2012-02-27T15:06:14Z

As Free Access to Law initiatives in the Global South enter into a new stage of maturity, they must be certain not to lose sight of their users’ needs. The following post gives a summary of the “Good Practices Handbook”, a research output of the collaborative project Free Access to Law — Is it Here to Stay? undertaken by LexUM (Canada) and the South African Legal Institute in partnership with the Centre for Internet and Society.

Almost ten years have passed since the Montreal Declaration on Free Access to Law (FAL) was signed by eight legal information institutes and other FAL initiatives. Today, the Free Access to Law Movement (FALM) is growing with over 30 initiatives having signed onto the Declaration and providing free, online access to legal information. While the movement continues to gain momentum, the big question no longer remains why we need free access to law, but instead how FAL initiatives can continue to do so sustainably in the long-term. The principles of access and justice underpinning the FALM have been well-argued and few would dispute the notion that citizens ought to have access to the laws under which they are governed. As the Montreal Declaration states: "Public legal information from all countries and international institutions is part of the common heritage of humanity…Maximizing access to his information promotes justice and the rule of law" (2002).

Regardless of legal system or political context, the importance of securing free online access to the law has been recognized from a variety of perspectives. Whether FAL is considered a critical democratic function or simply an essential efficiency within any legal system, it is difficult to contest that the internet has increased the accessibility of and ease with which legal information is being published and shared online. Setting the ideological and practical foundations of the movement aside, effectively demonstrating the impact of FAL initiatives and to secure their sustainability in the long-term remains the next big challenge for the FALM. Today, there is a growing necessity for grounded and realistic indicators that can validate some of the long-held assumptions around the impacts and outcomes of FAL initiatives. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, there is also a need for a more nuanced understanding of the factors that influence the sustainability of FAL initiatives— particularly in resource-scarce and often nebulous legal systems of the Global South.

This blog post provides some insight into the questions above through a brief summary of the results of the study Free Access to Law—Is it Here to Stay? This global comparative study was carried out by LexUM (Canada) and the South African Legal Institute in partnership with the Centre for Internet and Society. The project set out to begin providing answers to some of these critical questions around the impacts and sustainability of the FALM. It was initially hypothesized in the study that the sustainability of a FAL initiative rests upon a particular string of contingent factors. To begin, a particular condition would incentivize the creation of the FAL initiative — more often than not meeting the unmet needs of those requiring access to legal information. Next, if the FAL initiative is able to provide the service within a favourable context, it was suspected that it would produce favourable outcomes for both users and society at large. In turn, if the FAL initiative was able to provide benefits to users, it was theorized that these benefits would then stimulate reinvestment into the FAL initiative — forming a positive and sustainable feedback loop.

As the Good Practices Handbook highlights, the research hypothesis provided an accurate reading of what the sustainability chain of a FAL initiative might look like in practice. If unable to keep up with the evolving information requirements of their users, this study suggests that FAL initiatives run the risk of FAL becoming outdated and even outperformed by either government-based or private sector initiatives. This is why FAL initiatives must continue to be innovative and find new ways to meet users’ needs. Approaches take my include keeping their collections up to date, fine-tuning their services or even reinventing themselves through the provision of value-added services. Gathered from the experiences of the eleven countries across Africa and Asia examined in this study, the following is a brief summary of the nine “Good Practices” that emerging FAL initiatives can consider:

The FAL initiative should establish clear objectives: Before doing anything, the FAL initiative should decide what exactly it’s setting out to do…critical components such as content selection, targeted audience, expected reach, search functionalities and other website features help determine priorities and evaluate capacity to achieve these objectives.
How to be small and do big things: Most of the FAL initiatives studied as part of this project were formed of small teams (often less than five individuals). Initially, this may appear to pose a risk for sustainability. However, we saw a number of ways in which small teams have proven to be innovative, flexible, and able to thrive in environments of scarcity. However, as much as small teams can be seen as a source of innovation, they may also pose a risk in the medium to long-term.
FAL initiatives require expertise in both IT and legal information: Legal information management experts understand how the law is applied, how different texts and parts of texts speak to one another, and how these documents are used. IT experts can imagine a variety of ways to address these needs. If both forms of expertise is not available within the team of a FAL initiative, institutional partnerships provide promising sites for collaborative support. For example, the FALM constitutes a rich source of expertise and has proven to be a site of collaboration between established and emerging FAL initiatives. Further, universities have proven to be a significant source of human and financial resources for several FAL initiatives.
FAL initiatives should look to where they are headed (but not too far ahead): Because the purpose of a FAL initiative is to provide free online access to the law, it must secure access to this data for regular publication. How will legal information be received and organized by the initiative? In what format will it be published in? Early on, FAL initiatives need to develop both internal and external workflow processes to ensure that the initiative is able to provide regular access to updated information. Furthermore, an important finding of the study suggests that context plays a much larger role in a project’s sustainability. Consideration should be given to a country’s ICT infrastructure, the transparency of a government and their access to information regimes, and the nature of the legal information market when designing the workflows of an FAL initiative.
FAL initiatives should work with the ICT infrastructure in place: The quality and consistency of internet access varies across countries in the Global South. FAL initiatives should remain aware of how stakeholders and users are accessing the internet and develop their service accordingly. Considering the often intermittent nature of internet connectivity in the Global South, providing users with offline access to databases is a practical alternative.
FAL initiatives should use Free and Open Source Software: FAL initiatives should maximise their use of FLOSS. All FAL initiatives use FLOSS to some extent and without these flexible and cost-effective alternatives, it would be safe to infer that the FALM would have grown as quickly as it has.
FAL initiatives should be sensitive to culture: FAL initiatives rely on stakeholders and communities of users. Staying mindful of the professional and organizational cultures within a country may provide the initiative with a source of community support which may become a sustainability strategy. Further, integrated or parallel social networking platforms can play an essential role in community-building around the FAL initiatives and can also serve as another source of content in resource-scarce environments.
Find your users, match their needs: Project goals and appropriate strategies should be based on an in-depth understanding of the needs of those using the FAL initiative. As the sustainability chain suggests, when FAL initiatives produce positive outputs and outcomes, stakeholders will reinvest in the initiative to ensure its sustainability. If a user’s needs are effectively met by an FAL initiative, this group can provide either the resources or impetus for its continued success. Identifying who your users are and staying aware of their needs is a good way to secure reinvestment into the project.
FAL initiatives should diversify funding sources: This may be easier said than done — reinvestment can be the most challenging aspect of sustaining a FAL initiative. Early on, initiatives that receive donor-based funding benefit substantially upon investment. However, these initiatives are put at significant risk once initial seed funding has been depleted. Similarly, FAL initiatives that partnerships with other during their start up phase face similar fates as securing long-term service delivery can become a challenge. Possible funding sources included throughout the study include, among others: government, international development agencies or NGOs, the judiciary, law societies and the sale of value-added services.

In addition to these good practices, this study has emphasized the role the that the FALM has played in helping redefine online legal information as a public good. Each of the case studies demonstrates in a unique way the value openness plays in a legal information ecosystem, and how a robust digital legal information commons can be of benefit to users. Traditionally, the legal information market has been dominated by a select number of commercial players. In response, the FALM has created an important transnational space within which conversations around the provision of and access to legal information as a political right rather than a commodity to be bought and sold can take place. Encouragingly, governments in the Global South are catching and FAL initiatives from the South have proven to be immense sources of innovation in their own right. In Indonesia, for example, FAL initiatives have laid the groundwork for emerging government initiatives that are now prioritizing the provision of free, online access to legal and other government information. Today, I believe that we are witnessing an important paradigm shift as governments are beginning to recognize that “access” to legal information is a right to be held by the public.

Despite such headway, it is needless to say that FAL initiatives in the Global South continue to face immense sustainability challenges. However, it is hoped that this study can provide some practical insights for emerging initiatives and partnerships. However, as more FAL initiatives begin entering into the next stage of maturity and growth, it is more important than ever that they are able to adapt to adverse environmental changes and form long-lasting partnerships with information sources within government. Most importantly, FAL initiatives must remain dynamic and responsive to users’ needs. To do so, they must be able to tailor and expand their services, offerings and user-base. To secure their sustainability and relevance in the long term, they must also be continuously strengthening their ties and maintain open communication flows with users. If FAL initiatives are able to successfully make the transition from being supply side initiatives to becoming demand driven services, the FALM will be well-positioned for another decade of sustainable growth.

Download the collection below:

Good Practices Handbook (426 kb)
Environmental Scan Report (860 kb)
Local Researcher's Methodology Guide (1225 kb)

The full collection of case studies and the Good Practices Handbook was originally published on the Project Website. The Centre for Internet and Society oversaw the following case studies: India, Hong Kong, Indonesia and Philippines.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/blog-old/know-your-users

SOPA: The bill that could kill the Internet

praskrishna — 2011-11-18T07:26:30Z

As the US government’s House Judiciary Committee begins hearings on the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act, (SOPA), both supporters and opponents are ramping up their campaigning, with big names getting involved. And so they should. SOPA’s stakes are no less than the future of the Internet itself.

The key problem with SOPA is that it seeks to allow any copyright holder to sever any website’s relationship with online advertising networks or credit card processing services, simply by pointing the finger. As Ars Technica explains:

Calling its plan a “market-based system to protect US customers and prevent US funding of sites dedicated to theft of US property,” the new bill gives broad powers to private actors. Any holder of intellectual property rights could simply send a letter to ad network operators like Google and to payment processors like MasterCard, Visa, and PayPal, demanding these companies cut off access to any site the IP holder names as an infringer.

[…] So long as the intellectual property holders include some “specific facts” supporting their infringement claim, ad networks and payment processors will have five days to cut off contact with the website in question.

The bill also gives the government the power to get an injunction against foreign sites which would force ISPs to, within five days, ”prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site.” Essentially, it obliges ISPs to break their own DNS servers by filtering or redirecting users who try to access an accused site. It would also ban any tools which allow circumvention of such blocks.

It doesn’t take a genius to see how this could be abused: An aggrieved party accuses a site of infringement, with or without reliable evidence, and suddenly that site can no longer accept credit cards or PayPal payments and its advertising revenue dries up completely. And we know that the IP industry isn’t above false accusations of copyright infringement. It’s not just business websites that could be affected, but open source projects too.

Opponents currently include businesses such as Google, Facebook, Zynga, eBay, Twitter, Yahoo!, AOL, and LinkedIn who, together, sent a letter; advocates such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, Reporters Without Borders, and Human Rights Watch; as well as eleven members of the House of Representatives who have also written a letter to the House Judiciary Committee. Another letter from human rights groups includes India’s Centre for Internet and Society as well as the Church of Sweden.

There are also complaints that the House Judiciary Committee is trying to push the legislation through with undue haste. Says PCWorld:

Critics of the legislation also complained that the US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee appears to be fast-tracking the bill before opposition can build. At a 10 am hearing Wednesday, five of six witnesses are likely to speak in favor of SOPA, with only Google opposed. Witnesses the Motion Picture Association of America, trade union the AFL-CIO and pharmaceutical company Pfizer have all voiced support for the bill.

No public interest groups, Internet engineers or human rights groups have been invited to the hearing, said Gigi Sohn, president of Public Knowledge, a digital rights group. “This is really being railroaded, without a full public debate,” she said.

Indeed, the tone of the Committee’s so-called fact sheet, which lays out a series of ‘myths’ and ‘facts’, gives cause for concern, implying as it does that they have already decided which side of the fence they will land on. What is also disturbing is that the US Copyright Office — which as a part of the Library of Congress, one would expect to be impartial and evidence-led — will be offering an “unqualified endorsement“:

“It is my view that if Congress does not continue to provide serious responses to online piracy, the US copyright system will ultimately fail,” [Copyright Office director Maria] Pallante’s testimony says.

Pallante and representatives from Pfizer, the Motion Picture Association of America, the AFL-CIO, and Mastercard, all of whom support the bill, will be testifying tomorrow before the House Judiciary committee.

For Americans who are unimpressed by this latest move from the content industries to control the Internet, there is a letter writing campaign encouraging people to contact their congressperson. For non-Americans, Avaaz has set up a Save the Internet petition which currently has 70,000 signatures and is racking up hundreds of new signatures every minute.

There’s no doubt that tech journalists, free software advocates and digital rights campaigners and internet businesses worldwide will be glued to coverage of today’s Judiciary hearing. But, given the power of the copyright industry’s lobbying arms, it is hard to expect discussions to conclude satisfactorily. It may just be that the entire Internet will have to rely on the strength of the US Constitution, which SOPA may contravene, to save it.

This article by Suw Charman-Anderson was published in Firspost.Technology on November 16, 2011. The original can be read here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/news/bill-could-kill-internet

Telecom Path-Breaker?

Shyam Ponappa — 2011-11-18T05:42:00Z

Does the draft National Telecom Policy-2011 reflect true brilliance or smoke-and-mirrors? It will be a game-changer if a shared network is implemented effectively, writes Shyam Ponappa in this article published in the Business Standard on November 3, 2011.

There’s much to criticise the government about for not initiating systematic reforms. Yet, the draft National Telecom Policy 2011 (NTP-2011), announced three weeks ago, is a stunner.[1] It begins with a solid, integrated-systems preamble to IT, Communications and Electronics, followed by an excellent vision statement: “[to provide] secure, reliable, affordable and high quality... telecommunication services anytime, anywhere.” A sound beginning, although open-ended in terms of how the details could evolve.

There are potential problems with such high-level pronouncements, of course. A number of commentators castigate the motherhoods in the draft. With a lofty perspective and few details, much depends on how the open-ended possibilities develop, including the difficulties of execution in dealing with ground realities and obstacles.

An Assessment

NTP-2011 addresses six major areas: spectrum, licensing, broadband, convergence, roaming, and manufacturing. Focusing on the first two, there are sweeping proposals:

licences will not be linked to spectrum; and
spectrum sharing will be permitted.

Some view the separation of licences and spectrum as retrograde, because spectrum is essential for service delivery. Others suggest that transgressions that led to the scams are now being inducted as new policies, e.g., operators accessing networks they do not own, which is characterised as being against the public interest. Some heap opprobrium, alleging that like the previous policy, NTP-99, which they call retrograde (although it led to the phenomenal growth in mobile telephony), its main purpose is to allow companies to avoid paying licence/auction fees to the government.

The last expostulation is the most ludicrous, because revenue collections after NTP-99 far exceeded estimated fees foregone: Rs 20,000 crore estimated “loss” by March 2007, but Rs 40,000 crore actually collected, and Rs 80,000 crore collected by March 2010.[2]Add tax collections on exponential growth with increased profits, and the result is even higher total government revenues.
Opposing operator access to networks arises from confused objectives; blocking access is like cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face. The purpose of the sector is to provide services and access to users for legitimate activities. The public interest lies in facilitating access on appropriate terms.
To evaluate licensing and spectrum, begin with the premise of shared spectrum. Spectrum is essential for effective service provision, particularly in the rural and semi-urban areas with about 70 per cent of the population. An aspect not commonly known is that larger bands of spectrum enable more efficient throughput. For example, 1 MHz of a 12 MHz band carries 50 per cent more traffic than 1 MHz of a 6 MHz band. An estimate of the benefit to Indian operators of more bandwidth at international norms is a reduction of 20 per cent in operating costs.

Spectrum Occupancy

In practice, assigned spectrum is idle much of the time, except during the busy hours in India’s heavy-traffic metros, for extraneous reasons: too many operators, with too little spectrum, in too- narrow bands. This aspect becomes clear from spectrum utilisation or occupancy studies. For instance, the chart shows spectrum occupancy in Bangalore, Edinburgh and Stony Brook (New York) sometime in 2011.

The low readings (250 to 850 MHz in Bangalore, 600 to 950 MHz in Edinburgh, and 500 to 850 MHz in Stony Brook, NY) indicate available “white spaces” that can be better utilised.

High-traffic cities like Delhi and Mumbai have much higher utilisation than cities elsewhere in the world. It comes at increased costs to operators, because of advanced equipment and the closer spacing of towers, as well as having negative environmental effects. If a system with on-demand access to centralised, more efficient spectrum bandwidth were available, the capacity would be much higher, while operators would gain tremendous savings.

Another aspect has to do with the structuring and pricing of shared spectrum. One scenario for sharing is to enable operators to share assigned bands on mutually acceptable terms, leaving the onus of structuring and deployment on the respective operators, as for mobile telephony towers. As with the towers, there are likely to be coalitions of operators/independent entities who are able to work out arrangements among themselves, while not attaining the ultimate efficiency of unified coordination. For instance, participants who share towers in India share passive but not active infrastructure, and a critical element of active infrastructure is spectrum.

An alternative scenario would be mandated spectrum sharing. Spectrum on demand could be made available to any operator/counterparties for the duration of every communication “transaction”. This would need a database-driven Dynamic Spectrum Assignment facility, as deployed by Spectrum Bridge in the US. The more efficient throughput would mean higher traffic capacity for a given investment through better utilisation.

The distributed processing alternative through cognitive radio in every user device is (a) much less efficient, and (b) far more expensive. The market consolidation-through-acquisition approach, with more auctions, is the least efficient and most expensive.

Common-Access Networks

There would be further efficiencies if the entire network (and not just the spectrum) were accessed on-demand for payment per use. Another benefit from a public perspective would be much lower collective investment in resources, because of better utilisation. A third benefit would be the reduced environmental impact because of a lower carbon footprint and radiation from two or three common-access national networks (assuming competition is essential for effectiveness and efficiency).

In other words, database-driven, shared spectrum and networks have to be organised and managed as a coordinated unit if the potential benefits are to be realised. America is doing this with TV white spaces/the digital dividend, through the appointment of 10 database administrators (including Spectrum Bridge, Google and Microsoft). This should elicit our interest.

Once the government and stakeholders accept these concepts, the next major task is structuring the networks as consortiums to align the interests of operators and network providers, with state-of-the-art lead partners. In this process, incorporating and reorienting BSNL and MTNL as guardians of national interests with oversight by an adequately empowered regulator will be the remaining major tasks.

[1].http://www.dot.gov.in/NTP-2011/NTP2011.htm

[2].TRAI, 2005: http://www.trai.gov.in/trai/upload/StudyPapers/2/ir30june.pdf
CAG: http://cag.gov.in/html/reports/civil/2010-11_19PA/Telecommunication%20Report.pdf

Shyam's article was originally published in the Business Standard. It can be read here

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/telecom/telecom-path-breaker

Professor Balaram talks Open Access

thomas — 2012-08-03T23:10:10Z

Last week Tom Dane spoke with Professor P Balaram, Director of the Indian Institute of Science, about his thoughts on the Open Access movement. A podcast of the interview is available for download in the audio player within this post.

Professor P Balaram has been speaking on the Open Access movement for many years, and his position is nuanced. In this interview Balaram talks about the reasons he holds more hope currently for open-access archives over open-access journals, the importance of understanding the motivations of academics, and an idea for making institutional repositories more exciting.

~ 0:20 - Some of Balaram's views: the difficulty of the 'author pays' model for open-access journals, but our ability to separate this from the project of open-access institutional repositories.

~3:00 - clarifying the misleading idea that Indian scientists 'support' closed -access journals.

~4:30 - on the origins of the Open Access movement: not as an enabler of the developing world, but as an effort by libraries to counteract rising journal costs.

Professor Balaram on Open Access by CIS_India

~5:40 - on the future of the Open Access movement.

~6:00 - comparing open-access to the internet itself.

~6:50 - the importance of the community in expanding open-access, and the task of convincing more academics to support it.

~7:20 - how to make institutional repositories like vibrant and social parks.

~8:10 - the benefit of making repositories professionally competitive

~9:00 - the performance of the repositories at the Indian Institute of Science

~9:30 - the reasons why academics are currently slow to deposit papers, and how technology is making this easier.

~10:00 - the idea of changing the law in India to maintain the copyright of publicly funded work.

~10:50 - on how to make repositories more engaging: with websites, blogs, statistics, and rewards. More marketed, more dynamic, and the importance of imagination.

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/openness/professor-balaram-talks-open-access

CIS Comments on Finance Committee Statements to Open Letters on Unique Identity

praskrishna — 2011-11-13T02:39:16Z

We from the Centre for Internet and Society had sent six open letters to the Parliamentary Finance Committee on the UID. The Committee responded through an email on 12 October 2011. Our response to the points raised is reproduced below.

Dear Members of the Finance Committee,

Since January 2011, we have sent six open letters on the Unique Identity (UID) project to the Members of the Finance Committee. The Committee has responded through an email dated 12 October 2011. This letter is in reply to the points that were raised.

Finance Committee: "Comparison between SCOSTA and the UID project are not valid since SCOSTA is fundamentally a standard for smart card based authentication and does not work for the objectives of the UID project."

CIS: We disagree with this statement. The UID Bill states that the aim of the project is to provide identification and authentication services. Biometric technology may be useful for identification. The seventh open letter [1] that we sent to the Committee last week uses basic statistical analysis to demonstrate that the FPIR has to be 10−6 or a thousand-fold greater than the current level mandated by UIDAI procurement policy in order to achieve the project goal of building a national database of unique ID's. SCOSTA based smart card technology is more appropriate for the authentication of individuals because:[2]

Authentication will be based on asymmetric keys and perhaps pass-phrase or pin. This is known as public key infrastructure, and will allow a person to protect their authentication factor, and easily replace it if compromised.
Authentication through public key infrastructure does not depend on connectivity to a centralized network. This will allow for inclusion of unconnected populations.
Authentication through public key infrastructure establishes mutual trust between citizen and state. Instead of only the citizen being made transparent to the state – the state is also made transparent to the citizens. This will lower the presence of fraudulent institutions and corrupt transactions.
Connection to a centralized server is not required for only the authentication of an individual in a transaction. This will lower the cost of transactions and lower the IT overhead costs.

Finance committee: "The UID project follows a different approach and has multiple objectives like providing identity to the residents of India, and ensuring inclusion of poor and marginalized residents in order to enable access to benefits and services."

CIS: We disagree with this statement. Biometrics do not ensure the delivery of benefits. As mentioned in our third open letter,[3] in every transaction that requires the use of the biometric based UID number, there are four points where corruption is possible and delivery of services will not take place:

The technology fails, and does not perform authentication. Lack of connectivity, electricity and non-lab conditions for biometric technology.
The authority fails and delivers a false positive or false negative.
The local agency fails to deliver the service after authentication.
The biometric fails due to biological changes, and thus the individual is denied benefits.

Finance Committee: "Eliminating the fakes, duplicates and ghost identities prevalent in other databases."

CIS: We disagree with this statement. Biometrics cannot eliminate fakes, duplicates and ghost identities. The deduplication algorithm only checks for uniqueness of biometric information. This can easily be defeated by a.) presenting a combination of two persons biometrics, b.) presenting the biometrics of foreign nationals collected remotely using the Internet, and c.) modifying biometric information using software tools like image editors. This is not a remote technological possibility since many registrars like banks have financial incentives for creating ghost identities for benami bank accounts. The deduplication algorithm and technology is completely black-box and has not been subject to any independent audit. Ideally research organisations like CIS should be provided legal immunity so that we can conduct independent audits of the deduplication technology and provide evidence for policy-makers. Since the deduplication technology has such a direct impact on the quality of citizenship – we recommend that the Finance Committee include proper independent audit provisions in the draft bill.

Finance Committee: "Provide a platform for authentication in a cost effective and accessible manner."

CIS: We disagree with this statement. As our first open letter[4] to the Finance Committee notes, biometrics are not appropriate authentication factors. In our opinion the dependency of biometrics on connectivity, deduplication, and centralized storage causes them to be more expensive than smart cards. The onus is upon the UIDAI to demonstrate that biometrics are cheaper than existing systems like magnetic cards used by credit card and debit card companies. If it was truly technologically and economically the better option, surely banks driven by such considerations would have adopted them many years ago.

Finance Committee: "UIDAI is not issuing cards or smart cards."

CIS: We agree with the statement made and that is why it would be possible to defeat the UIDAI authentication system using fevicol and wax as demonstrated by security expert, Jude Terence D'Souza.[5]

Finance Committee: "Cards can be issued by agencies that are providing services."

CIS: We agree with the statement made and that is why the UIDAI cannot claim the benefits of secure authentication. In other words, agencies providing smart cards will have a more secure authentication based on smart cards and sooner or later citizens will stop using the weaker authentication based on biometrics provided by the UIDAI.

Finance Committee: "UID authentication does not exclude smart cards – service providers can still choose to issue smart cards to their beneficiaries or customers if they want to."

CIS: We agree with this statement but that makes the whole project redundant. If service providers are forced to issue smart cards to their customers, they will have to create separate databases of pins and keys for authentication. The service provider will not be able to authenticate users through the UID system.

We are grateful to have received a response from the Finance Committee and look forward to more correspondence with the Committee. We would also be very grateful if the Committee could give us an opportunity to come to Delhi on our expense and testify before the committee on legal, technology and privacy related aspects of the project.

Yours sincerely,

Elonnai Hickok

[1].http://goo.gl/93sl2

[2].http://goo.gl/ZrEQr,http://goo.gl/jHRvq

[3].http://goo.gl/pW3Wi

[4].http://goo.gl/ZrEQr

[5].http://goo.gl/0z22h

For more details visit https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/comments-on-finance-committee-statements