Canadian Council of University Biology Chairs
Conseil Universitaire des Directeurs de Biologie du Canada

Annual Meeting, November 11 - 13, 2010
Ottawa, ON

Jump to: Post Meeting Summary

The 2010 CCUBC Annual Meeting was held in Ottawa, ON hosted by Dr. Paul Marino, CCUBC President, Memorial University of Newfoundland and Dr. Iain Lambert, CCUBC Treasurer, Carleton University. 22 Biology Oriented department heads participated and found it to be very useful in their capacity as chairs of the department. The meeting is a good venue for exchange of ideas as well as extremely enjoyable, as it is full of social events. It is valuable for forward planning and finding creative solutions for the chair of the department common/ daily challenges. It is a great resource for new Department Heads and Chairs. The next meeting will be held in Halifax. Please contact Hugh Broders for suggestions regarding the 2011 CCUBC program.

View Meeting Photos

Brief Summary

Prepared by Iain Lambert (York), with assistance of Judy Anderson (Manitoba) and Paul Marino (Memorial).

1. Welcome by President, Dr. Paul Marino (Memorial University)

Paul expressed thanks to Wafaa Antonious, CCUBC Secretariat, and members of CCUBC Executive for assistance in making the Annual Meeting happen.

2. Reports from Chairs.

Paul then invited reports from all chairs present
Reports from the Departments (22 represented at the meeting) followed.

Participants:

1. Lawrence Hale, UPEI, PEI
2. Robert Barclay, University of Calgary, Alberta
3. Judy Anderson, Univ. of Manitoba, Manitoba
4. Art Davis, Univ. Sask., Saskatchewan
5. Hugh Broders, Saint Marys University, Halifax, N.S.
6. David Rose, Univ. Waterloo, ON
7. Robert Ireland, Mount Allison, N.B.
8. Stephen Heard, UNB, Frederickton, N.B.
9. Paul Marino, Memorial University, NL
10. Lucy Lee, Wilfrid Laurier, ON
11. Don Stewart, Acadia University, N.S.
12. Paula Wilson, York University, ON
13. Peter Lee, Lakehead University, ON
14. Bill Milsom, UBC Zoology, BC
15. Mike Hart, SFU, B.C. (representing Felix Breden)
16. Mel Robertson, Queens, ON
17. Peter Ryser, Laurentian University, Sudbury, ON
18. Bill Marshall, St. FX, N.S.
19. Andrew Hubberstey, University Windsor, ON
20. John Terhune, UNB St. John, NB
21. Michael Caldwell, University of Alberta
22. Iain Lambert, Carleton, ON

A variety of common challenges and concerns were reported by Chairs from across the country. Budget cuts within the Universities were reported by several Chairs. These, combined with increasing enrolments in Life Science programs, are putting considerable stress on departmental budgets. Several different strategies for dealing with these problems have been implemented. These include: reducing the frequency of laboratories in some courses (for example, every other week in first year); reduction in staff; curriculum revision; and implementation of laboratory fees. In addition several departments are expanding their undergraduate teaching labs to evenings and weekends to accommodate increased enrolments. Several Chairs reported on the recent hiring of non-research instructors, who have increased teaching loads relative to research faculty. Some Chairs commented on the value of developing Strategic Plans to deal with these circumstances in a rationale and systematic fashion. It was also suggested that for some departments this may be an opportunity to rationalize activities that are peripheral to a departments’ strengths. Although, in some cases, replacement for retiring faculty may be delayed, several Chairs reported that there had been net new growth in the department at the faculty level, and nobody reported a net loss of faculty members as a result of budgetary issues.

One of the greatest concerns expressed by most Chairs was the effect that changes in the NSERC Discovery Grant program would have in the departments. Some departments have experienced a net loss of NSERC grants but this was not a common experience. However, many departments are dependent on NSERC grant activity not only to support graduate students, but also to support the research carried out by Honours Thesis students. At this point almost no universities have developed a strategy to bridge faculty research or graduate student support if faculty should not receive NSERC funding. With the rapidly decreasing rate of funding, there is a strong concern that this may pose serious problems for departmental function and budgeting in the near future.

Several Chairs commented on the increased workload and cost associated with meeting the expanding requirements for reporting that are being implemented by university administrations and outside agencies. Areas where this was of particular concern were in the areas of animal care, providing academic accommodation for students, meeting Heath and Safety requirements, and responding to University procedures implemented as a result of Tri-Council audits. In some cases it was noted that the paucity of effective University level policy and procedures was problematic for departments.

The state of infrastructure remains an enormous problem for many departments. While the issues of aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, and limited/dispersed space are common issues, some departments have suffered from serious incidents (e.g. fire, storms, floods) that have impacted functionality dramatically. These issues point to the value of developing contingency plans. It was also noted that theft/loss of computer equipment and data sticks that contain personal information (Human resources, grades, etc. ) presents both functional problems if not backed up properly, but also potential FIPPA violations if that information falls into the hands of others.

3. CFI - The New CFI Funding Architecture (Sharyn Szick & Mireille Labrie, CFI)

CFI Presentation in PDF
$600M has been allocated to the Canadian Foundation for Innovation. [Note: The information presented at the meeting differs somewhat from what is on the CFI web site with respect to amounts allocated to the different funds.]

College-Industry Innovation Fund- $25M meeting/32.5M website. Call for proposals will be in December 2010. The fund will require private sector participation; collaboration with other partners (such as Universities) will be encouraged.

Leaders Opportunity Fund: $140Mmeeting/182M web site (2012/13 to 2013/14). There will be institutional allocations for Universities with over 0.2% of the sponsored research funding pool. For Universities with less than 0.2% of the total, there will be a Small Institution Fund created that will allow a given institution to draw up to $400K. Funds will be available for Canada Excellence Research Chairs (CERC). Up to $ 2M ($800K CFI contribution) can be requested per application (one application per CERC). There will be flexibility to apply when it is convenient. The form will be available in January 2011.

Leading Edge and New Initiative Funds: $155M meeting/200.5M web site (2012/13). The allocation of the funds between the LEF and the NIF has not yet been made. The Primary focus of the LEF will be to keep previous investments of the CFI at the leading edge. Therefore there will be real emphasis on sustaining previous CFI investments. The competition should be launched in December 2011. The CFI will attempt to create a format of limited numbers of full applications to ensure that the success rate of applications is commensurate with the amount of effort that is required to prepare a CFI application.

Infrastructure Operating: $95M meeting/$0 web site.

Major Science Initiatives: $185M meeting/$185M web site (2012/13 to 2016/17). There will be a limited number of projects funded; eligibility criteria will be a minimal investment of 25M. CFI will provide 40% of the operating costs.

More information can be found at: www.innovation.ca

4. NSERC - Update on last Discovery Grant results (Sylvia Williams, NSERC)

NSERC Presentation in PDF

The results of the 1010 NSERC Discovery Grant Program were presented with particular emphasis on the Life Science Panels.

The results of the competition can be found at http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/_doc/Professors-Professeurs/2010-DG-CompStat_e.pdf

The 2010 budget did have some additional funding for NSERC. Much of it was directed: New prestigious PDF program ($45M over 5 year); Discovery Grants ($8M/yr permanent increase); NSERC Strategy for Partnerships and Innovation ($5M permanent increase); College and Community Innovation Program ($15M permanent increase); Indirect Costs Program ($8M).

There was particular interest in the permanent increase in the DG program. There was some discussion regarding the role of NSERC in advocating for the DG program. Concern was expressed over the diminishing proportion of the NSERC budget that the DG program consumes, and the fact that increases to NSERC have come almost entirely through directed allocation of funds (e.g. prestigious graduate scholarships, strategic, industrial, and innovation funds).

It was suggested that we lobby NSERC directly to put entire $8M increase for the DGs towards increasing the number of awards, rather than allocating increased amounts to funded researchers or towards the Accelerator Supplements.

There was significant discussion regarding how to optimize the applications for the new method of evaluation. The new system places equal emphasis on the strength of the applicant, the proposal, and the training of highly qualified personnel (HQP). Many applicants did not make the necessary effort to document the contribution of the program to HQP training (including the role HQP play in manuscripts, the scientific meetings HQP attend and the nature of their participation, and the positions that HQP hold when they leave the lab), or to explain the role of HQP in the proposed research program. This was particularly anticipated to relate to renewals from more senior investigators who may not realize that there is a significant change in emphasis of the HQP-training criterion compared to their previous applications for DG funding. There is a renewed emphasis on the quality of the training, and not simply the number of HQP that a lab produces.

The RTI applications were also discussed. Among the points raised were the following. RTI applications are ranked and funded until the money runs out; therefore lack of success does not mean that the application is bad,-rather it means that the money ran out. The panel tries to fund an RTI in the same year that an individual is awarded a DG; therefore an effort should be made to apply for an RTI in the same year that a DG application is made. The success of the RTI can be influenced by the need for the equipment, the excellence of the researcher, the number of applicants that will benefit from the equipment, institutional in-kind contributions towards purchase of the requested equipment, and the existing NSERC support for equipment.

5. Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) (Clement Gauthier, CCAC)

Dr. Gauthier presented a framework for the development of the CCAC from its inception to the present time. In a wide ranging discussion several interesting points were made. Animal care is a provincial jurisdiction and not all provinces have developed appropriate legislation. CCAC is quasi regulatory and relies heavily on education, communication between stakeholder groups, and persuasion. If there are problems with an institutional Animal Care Committee (ACC) then the point of contact for the scientist should be the Vice-President Research of the Institution.

The CCAC recognizes that circumstances in the field can change and that post-factum amendments of field procedures may be justified. The CCAC has developed a series of training modules and is developing additional modules. However, these training modules etc should be treated as resources for the scientist and not as instruments for compliance.

There was some discussion about how to proceed if students object to use of animals in undergraduate labs. Several Chairs have had to deal with this issue. There was a general consensus that working with animals is part of a Biology education.

6. Field Stations and Collections

There is a concern that a general lack of funding is endangering research and education in the field. Several departments have access to field stations both in Canada and abroad (for example, England) and some of the Chairs described the nature of their facilities. These stations are used both for research and undergraduate/graduate teaching purposes. NSERC funding of field stations is limited by the requirement that the user consortia be composed of researchers from several institutions (including universities, government laboratories, or industry) across Canada. Few field stations meet these criteria.

An additional issue relates to collections held at universities. With the retirement of faculty, some collections fall into disuse and since they occupy a significant amount of space several universities are trying to find a home for the collections outside the institution. This issue was pursued on Saturday morning in a discussion with Mark Graham (Director of Research at the Museum of Nature). He indicated that there are a variety of provincial museums that should be approached and they may be interested in taking over the collections, particularly if the collection has been well maintained and if data is available. However, there is a real shortage of qualified scientists to work on collections.

7. Banquet.

The following Prizes were awarded at the CCUBC Banquet:

1. Canadian Council of University Biology Chairs Graduate Student Research Prize: Garry Armstrong, Queen’s University.
2. Canadian Council of University Biology Chairs Career Achievement Award: Dr. Bernard Glick, University of Waterloo
3. Canadian Council of University Biology Chairs Science Promotion Prize: Mr. David Tang, University of Manitoba.

8. Trip to the Museum of Nature.

The Chairs visited the Museum of Nature for a morning. They were hosted by Dr. Mark Graham, and learned about the need for taxonomists in collections and the opportunities of collaboration with museums, as well as the need to stabilize and effectively catalogue collections.

9. CCUBC Annual Business Meeting

Chaired by Paul Marino, President
i. Membership.
The Chairs discussed how we might optimize membership in the CCUBC and attendance at the meetings. One of the problems is that new Chairs might not be aware of the organization, especially if their predecessor was not involved. A list of departments that had not been involved recently was discussed and several of the members indicated that they will contact the Chairs those departments, particularly at those institutions that are seldom in attendance but may have similar issues or be located in the area of an upcoming meeting.

ii. Location for subsequent meetings.
The Chairs indicated that it would be best to try to alternate between different locations around the country for the annual meeting, and particularly to include both the East and the West on a regular basis. Therefore it was agreed unanimously that the next meeting would occur in Halifax, recognizing that Mark Brigham is on leave in South Africa until the summer of 2011. The likely venue for the meeting in 2012 would be Ottawa, but that would depend on the commitment to advocacy.

iii. Advocacy.
There was a discussion regarding the best way to advocate for the Life Sciences. It was generally agreed that this is extremely important, and that the lack of an organization to take over the advocacy role from CFBS was an ongoing problem. One of the suggestions was to invite members of government (or government departments), federal and provincial, and including opposition members, to the CCUBC meetings. Another possibility is to interact with the Partnership Group for Science and Engineering (PAGSE) http://www.pagse.org/en/main.htm. Chairs were encouraged to advocate for life sciences with their local MPs. Finally, it was noted that if there were several Chairs in Ottawa for other purposes then it might be possible for the CCUBC to provide funds for an additional period of time in Ottawa if those Chairs were able to meet with MPS or members of government departments.

iv. Issues for future meetings.
Several suggestions were made for agenda items in future meetings including the following.

• Undergraduate labs. There are several areas of interest for the Chairs, and it was felt that it may be worth doing a quick survey to determine the current state of undergraduate labs across the country. The executive will try to develop such an instrument. It was also noted that there is an Association for Biology Laboratory Education (ABLE) http://www.ableweb.org/index.htm and that we should find out more about ABLE. This is a North American organization; a senior lecturer at the University of Toronto is a past president of ABLE, and some members of our departments attend the annual meeting.
  
• How to deal with problem faculty
  
• Creative budgeting
  
• Best risk-management practices for field courses
  
• Training for responsible conduct in research
  
• Best practices for dealing with academic accommodations

v. Prizes.
Concern was expressed that the deadlines were too tight for the nomination process for the CCUBC prizes, and that the members weren’t made aware of the nominations until very close to the deadline. It was agreed that in future years the deadline for nominations would be July 1, and that a call for nominations would go out in May and a reminder would be sent in June. Following the meeting, it was confirmed that members received a request for nominations in June 2010, and there was one nomimation then, with another much later for a different award.

vi. Executive:

• Paul Marino’s term as President has ended. He will be replaced by Mark Brigham (Regina) for 2010-11 (until the end of the Halifax meeting).
  
• Judy Anderson (Manitoba) is 1st Vice President
  
• Hugh Broder (St. Marys) was nominated for, and accepted to stand for 2nd Vice President. His nomination was approved unanimously. He will act as the local host for the Halifax meeting.
  
• Iain Lambert (Carleton) will remain as Treasurer/Secretary.

vii. Financial Statements.
The financial statements for the CCUBC were presented by Iain Lambert and were unanimously approved.< /p>