An Interactive Approach to Understanding What it Takes to Conduct Innovative Research

For AquaNet, the promotion of innovation is an underlying research principle for sustainable, socially acceptable aquaculture. This workshop is intended to provide participants with a more comprehensive understanding of the importance of conducting innovative research, especially in a growing sector such as the aquaculture sector. Workshop participants will gain an appreciation of some of the barriers that may be encountered in trying to conduct innovative research, as well as the importance of conflict resolution.

Members of the AquaNet Research Management Committee will introduce AquaNet’s new research strategy. This presentation will be followed by an interactive session in which working groups representing the major stakeholders in conducting aquaculture research will be formed. Each group will review an actual research proposal according to the interests of their stakeholder group, and present their conclusions to the workshop participants.

Background materials and discussion questions will be circulated to workshop participants prior to the start of the workshop.

Workshop Facilitators

(1) Translating Research Findings into Public Policy Advice (8:30 AM - 10:00 AM)

Government policy frequently refers to the science base underlying and shaping policies and regulations. How research findings are or could be translated into policy is, however, not a clear process but involves interpretations and value judgements. Researchers, focused on the specifics of their academic inquiry, often don’t recognise the potential of their research to influence public policy, and if, would not necessarily know how to go about it. The objective of this session was to provide an understanding of the challenges and opportunities to translate AquaNet research into public policy advice and identify promising areas of AquaNet research that would be most valuable for policy makers at the provincial and federal levels.

Presenters:

• Tom Sephton, Ph.D, Research into Policy; Division/Station Director, Manager Aquaculture, St.Andrews Biological Station, New Brunswick, Fisheries and Oceans Canada [Presentation (230 KB)]
• Bud Graham, ADM, Resource Development and Sustainability, BC Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Victoria, BC
  Highlights of Presentation:
  
  • The provincial government of BC is committed to sustainable aquaculture development
    
    • Challenge: there are different interpretations of what “sustainable” means. Science can play a role in contributing to a definition used in policy making
      
  • Science needs to inform policy-making
    
    • Regulations and policies building upon science-based standards
      
    • Challenge: conflicting and contradicting scientific evidence; for each scientifist arguing on way, there is another scientist arguing the opposite; how is government to decide what the “science base” is
      
    • Many un-answered questions - proceed with best knowledge of the day
      
      
• Charles Santerre, Ph.D., Professor, Purdue University
  Highlights of presentation:
  • What drives public policy? Issues will drive research to inform policy
    
  • In US: Food safety debate is pushing the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to review is policy and safe food standards
    • Stress on industry and academic community
    • Risk - needs to be looked at in comparison: benefits of eating fish compared to risks of eating fish
    • Nutritional aspects : what are benefits from eating fish from early childhood to adult weighed against contaminants;
    • Need to get more fish into the diets of Americans.

The plenary discussion identified several policy areas where research could inform policy making:

• What drives public policy?
  • “Farmed and dangerous” campaign of anti-aquaculture interest groups
  • Impact of aquaculture on oceans - fish feed/oils and relation to GMO food
  • Public perception to media, public inquiries and publicity
  • Societal values of the day
• Ethics Issues
  • Legitimacy of decisions; institutional processes
    • Involve members on the research team to address policy issues
• Risk Assessment and AquaNet’s role
  • E.g. benthic impact: how much is too much, build conceptual model as a foundation
  • Must be able to explain the pros and cons for the public’s knowledge to make an informed decision
• From Mono-specific approach to polyculture
  • Implications for regulations
• Monitoring food safety

Other aspects to be considered:

• 2 different aspects: directed research to address specific problems/needs vs. basic, long-term research
• Importance of trust: accusations of “bad” science
• Communications by scientists: available vs. accessible information, whom to communicate with: policy makers or via media,
• HQP in labs need to think outside the box in viewing all issues, particularly those close to research interest, be more horizontal thinkers

To be determined:

• Key researchers and contacts in government (provincial and federal) who should be approached / involved
• Issues to be considered
• Next steps

(2) Intellectual Property Management (10:30 AM - 12:00 PM)

The mandate of the NCE Program is to make every reasonable effort to have the results of AquaNet’s research exploited in Canada for the benefit of Canadians. Numerous reviews of commercialisation of Canadian university/affiliate institutions have identified barriers in several areas, including:

• Problems with the identification of promising research
• Lack of receptor capacity in industry
• Lack of consistent policies with respect to disclosure and ownership of Intellectual Property (IP)

This workshop was intended to provide an overview of IP

• Provide context why is IP important to AquaNet
• Increase the understanding of what IP is, how it applies to aquaculture research
• Explain existing NCE/AquaNet/university policies re. disclosure and ownership
• Provide practical examples from another NCE: on what worked well/did not work well

Presenters:

• Ron Kilmury, AquaNet - AquaNet and IP [Presentation (290 KB)]
• Michael Manson, Alakananda Chatterjee, Smart & Biggar, Intellectual Property Management, IP - what it is and how it works [Presentation (1.4 MB)]
• Angus Livingstone, University Industry Liaison Office, Intellectual Property Management [Presentation (318 KB)]
• Jim Brookes, MITACS, Intellectual Property Management, Chief Operating Officer / Network Business Manager, Experiences and best practices at MITACS, Canada’s NCE in Mathematics of Information Technology and Complex Systems [Presentation (909 KB)]

Implications for AquaNet:

• Importance of Research Management Committee to identify research areas for market application
• Suggested Role of Network:
  • advocate on behalf of project team
  • work with UILO office, where the expertise resides
  • help mediate IP issues
  • provide some of the important financial aid for legal fees and to support the creation of spin-off companies
• Challenge: technology transfer takes 7-12 years, networks may not exist any more by the time technology is commercialised

Useful Links on issues related to Intellectual Property Management:

• Canadian Intellectual Property Office
  • In particular: “Intellectual Property and What it Means to You”

Links to documents and resources in the Canadian context

• World Intellectual Property Organization
  • Contains digital library and links to many resources
• UBC University-Industry Liaison Office
  • In particular: “A Guide to Protecting Intellectual Property”

(3) Effectively interacting with Media (1:30 PM - 3:00 PM)

Media play a key role in portraying aquaculture research and its implications for sustainable aquaculture sector development to the public. To profile research sponsored by the Network requires that AquaNet’s scientists actively participate in and be conscientious to the needs, opportunities and pitfalls of an active media relations program. Scientists and media operate very differently. This session’s objective were to

• Explain AquaNet’s role in working with researchers to promote research activities and success stories
• Increase the awareness of scientists of the culture and operations of media, and what makes a story
• Provide examples of successful and failed media interactions

Presenter

• Paul Patterson, Associate Director, UBC Public Affairs

Paul Patterson used his TV news story on biomedial waste, produced when he was reporter with CBC in Halifax, to explain what makes news, how information is packaged and manipulated. He encouraged researchers to speak to media to promote their research and offered the following Do’s and Don’ts when preparing for and going through an interview.

Interview Do’s and Don’ts

• Ask in advance what the focus of the interview will be. What questions will the reporter be asking?
• Ask who else will be interviewed for this story.
• Ask for the reporter’s deadline, then tell the reporter you will call back before that deadline and do.
• Determine the one or two key points that will be your message.
• When possible, agree to the interview if you feel you are the right person, it is the only opportunity you have to maintain some control over your message.
• If possible, supply background and research information that further confirms your message.
• If possible, select the location and background that conveys your message and makes you feel most comfortable.
• If you are not comfortable dealing with this reporter, call Public Affairs.
• During the interview, do not be drawn into a defensive position.
• Do not lose your cool no matter how combative the interview may become.
• Stay focused on your message - politely and persistently “bridge” back to it no matter where the reporter tries to take you.
• Be wary of expressing personal opinions when inappropriate. These are the quotes most likely to be used.
• Be aware that only a short 10-15 second clip from your interview will be broadcast. Try to make sure that clip contains your message.
• Always confirm the obvious.
• Never lie or mislead. You will be caught.
• Never put your hands up in front of the camera to block the lens.
• Never say “No Comment.”
• If there are re-asks or cutaways in a nterview, insist on being present when these are done.
  Remember that nothing is off the record.you don’t want it reported donȁsay it. Don’t tell reporters your problems.

Additional Tips for Broadcast

• Speak slowly in short concise sentences avoiding jargon.
• Sit up straight.
• Always stay focused on the interview and your message.
• Avoid distracting clothing, bold stripes, noisy jewelry, busy patterns etc.
• When possible, avoid being set up for surprise on-air debates.
• Be wary of phone-in shows since you have no control over the questions asked.

For more tips: www.publicaffairs.ubc.ca/facstaff/reporterscall.html

(4) Building Patnerships - Research - Industry - Government (3:30 PM - 4:30 PM)

NCEs are based on unique partnerships to pursue multi-sector collaborative research. AquaNet’s strategic goal is to increase the amount of leveraged funds available for research and education to support a sustainable aquaculture sector. Scientists tend to focus on their academic research and not on what it takes to form these multi-partner collaborations involving academia, industry and/or government. Further, because of the administrative complications in starting and effectively managing these multi-sector projects, they are not a priority for the researcher and require additional support to make them work effectively and efficiently. A panel including an AquaNet researcher, industrial partner and a government representative presented their views on:

• Success factors (best practices) for multi-sector partnerships: what needs to be in place and what are the respective roles of researchers/ AquaNet, and sectoral partners
• Aspects that need to be considered from the research design to the application of the research stage

Panellists

• Brad Hicks, Executive Vice President, Taplow Feeds
• Steve Rhodes, Manager, Intergovernmental Relations and Strategic Initiatives, Western Economic Development
• Joe Brown, Ph.D., Memorial University of Newfoundland, AquaNet Animal-Production Co-Theme Leader

The panel and plenary discussion highlighted a number of challenges:

• Industry is focused on bottom line, research investment has to demonstrate an impact bring in a return in a relative short time frame
• Importance for industry to be kept informed about progress/results
• Researchers have difficulty getting partners due to the short time frame of the proposal development
  • Reaching the same targets, scientists have difficulties securing industrial partners to invest into research
  • Partner status: where both put in 50% would they have equal partner status and what would this mean?
• Mismatch of what industry and academics expect re. highly qualified personnel
• There is a need to educate industry about the scientific process
• This is important so that good science is done which in turn produces good results for transfer to industry
• The NCE funding process does not guarantee to fund a student through his Master’s or Ph.D. program (e.g. project for only one or two fiscal years) which affects the ability to attract top students
• AquaNet role as broker, not spokesperson, for research project
• European Co-funding of projects: strong support for mobility to have students at companies and company technicians at university; has worked very well (this also holds for Canadian industry support)
• Science forum process improves ability to facilitate partnerships