TABLE OF CONTENTS RECOMMENDATIONS CONERNING GREENHOUSE GAS REDUCTION STRATEGIES: STATEMENT TOT HE MINISTERS OF ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY CLIMATE CHANGE STUDY GROUP FORMED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO CGCP NOW GLOBAL CHANGE AND CANADA NEW CGCP ANNUAL REPORT TO PROVIDE FACTS, FIGURES AGRICULTURE FORUM ON CLIMATE CHANGE ROYAL SOCIETY'S CASE STUDY OF RESEARCH IN THE MACKENZIE BASIN EXAMINES AQUATIC SCIENCE IN CANADA INTERNATIONAL GEOCHEMICAL MAPPING CLIMATE ON THE INTERNET UPDATE REGARDING PROPOSALS SUBMITTED TO THE IAI PACT OVERVIEW AND UPDATE HUMAN DIMENSIONS OF GLOBAL CHANGE STUDENTSHIP CCP INFO IMPLICATIONS FOR CANADA OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE ASSESSMENT REPORTS -- AN OVERVIEW INTERNATIONAL MODEL FOREST NETWORK SECRETARIAT TRANSFERRED TO IDRC. EARTH OBSERVATION DATA SETS PROGRAM CALL FOR PROPOSALS WETVNEW TELEVISION NETWORK FOR GLOBAL AUDIENCE   INTERNATIONAL BIODIVERSITY MONITORING SYSTEM SET UP IN NOVA SCOTIA RECENT PUBLICATIONS EVENTS CALENDAR

ROYAL SOCIETY'S CASE STUDY OF RESEARCH IN THE MACKENZIE BASIN EXAMINES AQUATIC SCIENCE IN CANADA Stephen Bocking Environmental & Resource Studies Program, Trent University Aquatic science makes numerous contributions to Canadian society, both in terms of a greater understanding of natural phenomena, and a more effective basis for resource management and environmental protection. However, there are concerns about its capacity to maintain these contributions. Accordingly, in 1993 the Royal Society of Canada initiated a study of aquatic science as part of its program of evaluation of the national scientific research effort. The study, called Aquatic Science in Canada: A Case Study of Research in the Mackenzie Basin by the Aquatic Science Committee of the Royal Society of Canada examined the current state of aquatic science and its capacity to respond to the evolving demands of Canadian society, devoting particular attention to research evaluation. Although the study focused on the Mackenzie Basin, the issues facing aquatic research there parallel those existing elsewhere in Canada. Research in the Mackenzie Basin has been shaped by several factors, including the need to assess the impacts of, and regulate, northern resource development activities, concern about emerging environmental issues such as climate change, and scientific interest in natural features such as the Mackenzie Delta. The pattern has been one of boom-and-bust: after a low level of activity in the 1960s, scientific work surged dramatically in the 1970s, only to decline in the early 1980s. In recent years, activity has again increased. Throughout this history, the divergent priorities of researchers have been evident: university and some federal scientists have emphasized basic research, while researchers within industry, consulting firms, and some government agencies have addressed more immediate economic or political priorities. A variety of evaluation strategies, such as peer review and program evaluation, are currently applied to aquatic science. However, most such strategies, although useful, tend to assume particular priorities for science, and fail to provide a comprehensive perspective. Indeed, these strategies can accentuate divisions between different types of aquatic research, reducing its capability to address the diverse priorities of all groups — scientists, policy makers, the general public, and first nations — that have an interest in knowledge about the aquatic environment. Accordingly, the study proposed an alternative: a pluralistic strategy for evaluation. Such a strategy would foster research that could meet the range of expectations imposed on aquatic science, by encouraging a more consensual, democratic perspective on research priorities. Evaluation would be based on four criteria: scientific adequacy; value (relevance to scientific and/or political priorities); effectiveness (the impact of the research on political or scientific agendas); and legitimacy (whether the research fulfills an appropriate place for scientific expertise in society). These criteria are not equally relevant to all research. However, if it is to fulfill its political and scientific roles, aquatic science must be able to provide adequate, relevant and effective information, through processes accepted as legitimate. The study report provides detailed recommendations of interest to scientists, managers and policy makers, as to how progress towards such research could be encouraged. For more information about this study contact Dr. Stephen Bocking, Environmental & Resource Studies Program, Trent University, Peterborough, Ontario K9J 7B8; tel: (705) 748-1520/1261; fax: (705) 748-1569; e-mail: SBocking@trentu.ca. Copies of the report are available for CAN$15.00 each from The Royal Society of Canada, 225 Metcalfe, #308, Ottawa, Ontario K2P 1P9; tel.: (613) 991-5760; fax: (613) 991-6996