Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for Health & Life Sciences Data and Sample Mining (DM) or Research Models (RM)
On this page
Publication date:
Applications due .
Summary of Key Information
Eligible recipients::
- Canadian post-secondary institutions, defined as a Canadian university or college (including CEGEPs in Quebec) that has provincial accreditation to grant degrees, diplomas, certificates or other recognized qualifications;
- Not-for-profit organizations established and operating in Canada that have research included in their institutional mandate, and that have a standing Research Ethics Board / Animal Care Committee (when required), or that delegate this responsibility to another institution's recognized board/committee.
Funding Type: Grants
Maximum amount per grant: two (2) funding categories:
- Category 1 - Data and Sample mining (DM): up to $75,000 for a maximum duration of one (1) year.
- Category 2 - Research Model (RM): up to $180,000 for a maximum duration of two (2) years.
The number of grants and the amount awarded will depend on the budget requested by each proposal and the availability of funds.
1 INTRODUCTION
Future human exploration of space is expected to extend beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to the orbit and surface of the Moon, and ultimately to distant targets such as Mars. The resulting expeditions will require extended periods of exposure to weightlessness and space radiation, with confinement and isolation in the extreme environment of space, all of which are linked to substantial health and performance risks.
The CSA supports human spaceflight and maintains a highly qualified Canadian astronaut corps capable of participating in space exploration missions. Also, as stated in the vision and priorities of the recent Space Strategy for Canada, the CSA aims to enable scientific opportunities and global partnerships, and to harness space to solve everyday challenges for Canadians.
To achieve this, the CSA's Health and Life Sciences (HLS) group conducts activities to generate knowledge in fields that sustain human space flights, mitigate health risks, and develop countermeasures for those missions. Since time and resources on the International Space Station (ISS) are limited, CSA aims to broaden science opportunities to enhance and supplement flight investigations ISS and to optimize utilization of the Canadian resource allocation ISS.
The intent of this Announcement of Opportunity (AO) is to provide financial support to researchers at Canadian Universities and post-secondary institutions to conduct science investigations that will lead to a better understanding of human spaceflight risks while contributing to improve remote medicine and health benefits here on Earth.
More specifically, this AO is divided in two (2) different categories, as defined below:
Category 1 - Data and Sample mining:
This category solicits proposals for scientific analyses, using databases or samples derived from existing collections to improve the understanding of the risks of spaceflight or for initial validation of new countermeasures. The studies selected for this Category are expected to be precursors of Canadian investigations on the ISS or Lunar Gateway.
Dedicated databases and sample repositories collecting the results from space-related studies on human subjects and non-human model organisms are available (see Table 1 for examples of databases and repositories). These studies include investigations in space and on Earth using analogue populations or other relevant models of spaceflight. In addition to the use of publicly available datasets and repositories, researchers can also use datasets from previous flight or analogue experiments, either archived by the original investigator at their institution. Applicants must provide in their proposal a clear justification of the intended use of datasets or samples to test or generate new hypotheses regarding the effects of spaceflight on human health.
Table 1: Examples of databases and sample repositories that could be used to respond to this AO Category. This category is not confined to these databases or sample repositories, nor will proposals using these specific databases or sample repositories be favored. Inclusion of database or sample repository here does not constitute an endorsement or guarantee access. All data and sample use implies attribution requirements (i.e., acknowledgement of the root source(s) of the data or samples).
| Database or sample repository | Details | Access Limits |
|---|---|---|
| NASA GeneLab |
A comprehensive "-omics" database for space-related research utilizing both ground and space biological and radiation data. |
|
| Genbank |
The GenBank sequence database is an open access, annotated collection of all publicly available nucleotide sequences and their protein translations. |
|
| Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging Data and Biospecimen (CLSA) |
A longitudinal study that tracks various health-related parameters in Canadians between 45-85 years old. |
|
| Canadian Nuclear Laboratories (CNL) Tissue Bank |
The Canadian Nuclear Laboratories offer a tissue bank from the Life Span Study that aims to investigate the relative biological effectiveness of ingested tritium vs exposure to Co-60 gamma rays on the tumorigenesis and latency in mice. |
|
| Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS) |
Canadian Health Measures Survey (CHMS), the biobank is designed to produce a nationally representative cohort to facilitate the progress of new and innovative health research projects. The biobank currently holds biospecimens (blood, urine, and DNA) collected from over 22,000 consenting Canadians between the ages of 3 to 79 years. |
After obtaining all necessary approvals, a letter of agreement is signed between the researcher and Statistics Canada. |
| Dryad |
Dryad is an international disciplinary repository of data underlying scientific and medical publications. Dryad is a curated general-purpose repository that makes data discoverable, freely reusable, and citable. |
|
It is the researchers' responsibility to provide a proof of access to required data or samples before submitting their proposals.
Category 2 – Research Models:
The focus of research to be funded under this Category 2 - RMRM will be to use non-human subject research models such as animals, organoids, cell culture, and microorganisms to investigate space-related health risks (identified in Table 2 in Section 3.3) and identify sex differences, if applicable. The CSA encourages innovative approaches, such as synthetic biology (i.e., modification of living systems) that support health risk reduction, diagnosis or health care during space missions (prevention, detection, or treatment of acute or chronic health issues, infectious disease, radiation exposure, stress, etc.). However, the core of the proposed studies must focus on living systems.
Well-designed non-human subject research model studies are valuable for improving our understanding of the risks of spaceflight or for initial validation of new countermeasures. The studies targeted in this Category are expected to lead to countermeasures related to human spaceflight health risks, and to be precursors of Canadian investigations on the ISS or Lunar Gateway. In other words, the applicant must provide a solid conceptual link between the proposed work and future studies that require access to space. Proponents must also substantiate the validity of the link between the chosen experimental system(s) and human biology.
The study must include research model/methodology relevant to weightlessness (for example: centrifuges, clinostats, rotating bioreactors, Falcon 20 conducting parabolic flights) or space radiation. The costs of access and travel to facilities (e.g.: purchase of clinostats or access to beam facilities for radiation studies) must be included in the applicant's budget.
This AO is consistent with the terms and conditions of the CSA Class Grant and Contribution Program to Support Research, Awareness and Learning in Space Science and Technology – Research Component.
Applicants are asked to read the following AO thoroughly before submitting their proposals. This AO was prepared to help applicants complete the application process, and outlines key elements, including mandatory criteria for eligibility, details on eligible projects and the selection process. In the event of any discrepancies between this AO and the individual funding agreements governing a project, the latter document(s) will take precedence.
2 AO OBJECTIVES
Projects selected from this CSA competition must increase scientific knowledge that will contribute to the efforts toward the understanding, mitigation or elimination of health risks associated with human space exploration, and to generate scientific insights that will contribute to applications on Earth.
More specifically, through this AO, the CSA seeks to:
- Create an opportunity for new space life science experiments to generate knowledge and insight into the risks of human space flight, with the ultimate objective to keep astronauts healthy in space. Each proposed study must clearly indicate how it is expected to be a direct precursor of future Canadian investigations on the ISS or Lunar Gateway;
- Advance our understanding of similar health issues or applications on Earth, that could contribute to improving health of Canadians;
- Foster the development of highly Qualified Personnel (HQP), and the inclusion of under- represented groups engaged in space health and life sciences.
3 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
In this section
3.1 Eligible Recipients
Eligible recipients (beneficiaries) for grants are:
- Canadian post-secondary institutions, defined as Canadian universities or colleges (including CEGEPs in Quebec) that have a provincial accreditation to grant degrees, diplomas, certificates or other recognized qualifications;
- Not for profit organizations established and operating in Canada that have research included in their institutional mandate, and that have a standing Research Ethics Board / Animal Care Committee (when required), or that delegate this responsibility to another institution's recognized board/committee.
3.2 Eligible Projects
Projects eligible for funding under this AO are those wherein eligible recipients submit projects for which a Canadian researcher is the Principal Investigator (PI) for a new research project. Projects must be original initiatives presented to the CSA. Projects submitted to other space agency-led selection processes are not eligible under this AO. The principal investigator must hold a traditionally recognized academic position such as professor, associate professor, assistant professor, or professor emeritus (post-doctoral fellows cannot be considered as PI). Individuals who are paid salary through someone else's research grant are not eligible as a PI.
Category 1 - DM:
As described in Section 1, eligible projects will focus on scientific analysis, using datasets or samples derived from existing collections to improve our understanding of the risks of spaceflight on health of men, women, and gender diverse people (identified in Table 2 in Section 3.3) and the identification of new potential countermeasures to these risks.
Category 2 - RM:
As described in Section 1, eligible projects will use non-human subject research models such as animals, organoids, cell culture, or microorganisms to investigate space-related health risks (identified in Table 2 in Section 3.3) or new countermeasures to these risks. However, the core of the proposed studies must focus on living systems. The study must include a research model/methodology relevant to weightlessness.
All development phases necessary for a project are eligible. Any logical breakdown or combination of these phases can constitute a funded project. However, breaking down a project into numerous phases to obtain more than the maximum grant or contribution is not allowed. Furthermore, even if the maximum funding for one project is not reached, the completion of a funded phase does not automatically guarantee funding of the remaining phases.
3.3 Links to CSA Priorities
To be eligible, projects supported under this AO must be aligned with CSA priority outcomes, as stated in the - Departmental Plan: Leveraging deep-space health and food innovations. In accordance to its mandate, the activities selected must 1) generate new knowledge and insight into the risks of human space flight to keep astronauts healthy in space (Space Strategy for Canada, ), 2) they must clearly be recognizable as direct precursors of future Canadian investigations on the ISS or Lunar Gateway, and 3) they must generate strategies for novel countermeasures against the risks of human space flight. The most important health risks associated with human space flights (i.e., future long-duration human spaceflight missions) have been listed in Table 2.
In addition to the risks listed in the table below, the CSA will also evaluate if the activities would contribute to advancing our understanding of similar health issues, could contribute to improving health and health care for all Canadians, or translate to applications on Earth.
The following table presents the human space flight risks targeted by the CSA for this AO.
| Musculoskeletal | Mission risk resulting from reduced muscle strength and aerobic capacity, and increased bone fragility. |
|---|---|
| Sensorimotor | Mission risks resulting from sensory changes/dysfunctions. |
| Metabolism | Mission risks associated with metabolism and the effects of nutrient composition of diet on health during space missions. |
| Behavioural Health and Performance | Mission behavioural health and performance risks, for example, associated with psychological adaptation, stress and fatigue, cognitive deterioration, or issues with team dynamics. |
| Radiation | Mission risk due to health and performance impairment associated with radiation damage. |
| Variable Gravity and Planetary-Lunar Missions | Mission risks associated with physiological adaptation (including Space Associated Neuro-optical Syndrome) during transit (i.e. long duration exposure to microgravity) and sojourn on planetary surfaces. Note that physiological adaptation includes adaptation of human-associated microbial communities. Other risks can be associated with planetary exploration and can include, for instance, exposure to dust. |
3.4 Links to the Class Grants and Contributions (G&C) Program Objectives
To be eligible, projects supported under this AO must contribute to the achievement of at least one (1) of the following objectives:
- To support the development of science and technology relevant to the priorities of the Canadian Space Agency;
- To foster the continuing development of a critical mass of researchers and highly qualified people in Canada in areas relevant to the priorities of the Canadian Space Agency.
4 APPLICATIONS
4.1 Required Documentation
The required documentation can be uploaded electronically.
The application must include the following:
- The full proposal, with a completed original application form (Word, 119 KB) signed by the duly authorized representative. For electronic submission, a digital signature is required;
- A copy of the document(s) confirming the legal name of the applicant (must be confirmed by the organization's Office of Research);
- For Not-for-profit organizations, an original or certified copy of their certificate of constitution, letters patent, or other constitutive documents. Non-original or uncertified copies are accepted for the purposes of the application, but subsequently the original documents will be required at the time of the signing of the agreement.
- Letters from other funding contributors confirming their contributions, if applicable;
- Letter of support from Co-Investigators, confirming their intent to participate to the study, including information on the potential source of funds, if applicable;
- Letters from providers of any other data that are not openly accessible confirming the availability of the data;
- The CSA requires that ethical principles stated in the Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans be followed during the execution of projects selected for funding. Applicants need to ensure that institutional ethical certification requirements have been met and provide a letter signed by the chairperson of the local Research Ethics Board (REB) or Animal Care Committee (ACC) regarding approval of the experimental protocol;
- A Data Management Plan shall be provided with the proposal that addresses:
- Types of data products;
- Short term data preservation approach;
- Long term data preservation/archiving approach;
- Formats for data and metadata;
- Sharing and Reuse of the data, when applicable;
- Roles and Responsibilities for data management within the team.
- Declaration on Confidentiality, Access to Information Act and Privacy Act form signed by the duly authorized representative (refer to the Applicant Declaration on Confidentiality, Access to Information Act and Privacy Act section included in the application form);
- For organizations in Quebec, M-30 Supporting Documentation form completed and signed by the duly authorized representative (refer to the M-30 form for organizations in Quebec included in the application form).
It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the application complies with all relevant federal, provincial, and territorial legislation and municipal bylaws (federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal).
The application, uploaded electronically, must be prepared as a single PDF-formatted file containing all the above requested documents with all security features disabled. Please order the document with the application form and proposal first. The proposal and supporting documents must be submitted as a searchable PDF-formatted document (PDF/A-1a or PDF/A-2a formats preferred). If there are any accessibility issues with the submitted PDF file, all consequences reside with the applicant.
The applicant must keep one (1) hard copy of all the original documents above. The CSA may require applicants who successfully passed the evaluation stage described in Section 5 of the AO to send a hard copy of their complete application with the original documents.
Process for electronic submission:
- The applicant must complete an account creation request at the Electronic Proposal Portal. Upon receipt, the CSA will send an email with instructions on how to connect to the CSA secure filer system to allow you to upload documents securely. Please note that Chrome is the browser of choice for submissions. Supported browsers are Google Chrome, Firefox and, Internet Explorer with some restrictions.
- Allow up to seventy-two (72) hours for the CSA to send an email confirming the account creation as well as instructions (user guide) on how to access the platform. It is strongly recommended that the account creation request be submitted no later than . If technical issues cannot be resolved, applicants must submit their application by mail. Applicants are strongly encouraged to upload their complete application well before the submission deadline.
- Using the temporary password assigned by the CSA, login to the secured portal to upload protected documents;
- Please refer to the user guide for instructions on how to securely upload documents.
- Applications must be submitted (successfully uploaded) by applicants no later than 2:00 PM (EDT), ;
- Incomplete or late applications shall not be considered. A late application has an electronic timestamp on the CSA system after the deadline above.
Process for application sent by mail:
The applicant is encouraged to submit their application electronically following the instructions provided in Section 4.1 of the AO. However, if the applicant is unable to submit their application electronically, please communicate with santespatiale-spacehealth@asc-csa.gc.ca no later than at 2:00 PM (EDT), to obtain instructions on how to submit a paper application by mail.
- For applications sent by mail, one (1) original paper copy of the full proposal, with a completed original application form signed by the duly authorized representative is required. A copy of the application (identical to the signed paper copy) in a PDF file (on a USB flash drive) is also required. If there is any discrepancy between the hard and the soft version, the hard copy will take precedence.
Applications submitted by mail must be received at the CSA headquarters no later than at 2:00 PM (EDT). Applications sent by email will not be accepted. Incomplete applications may not be considered. The CSA is not responsible for any delays under any circumstances and will refuse applications that are received after the stipulated deadline.
Questions and answers related to this AO will be posted on the CSA website in the Frequently Asked Questions (Section 9).
4.2 Service Standards – Complete Applications
CSA has set service standards for the timely delivery of the acknowledgement of receipt, funding decision and payment processes.
Acknowledgement: The CSA's goal is to acknowledge receipt of proposals within two (2) weeks of receiving a complete application package.
Decision: The CSA's goal is to let applicants know the fate of their proposal within forty-six (46) weeks of the AO's closing date and to send a grant agreement for signature within eight (8) weeks after formal approval of the proposal.
Payment:
The CSA's goal is to issue payment within four (4) weeks of successful fulfillment of the requirements outlined in the grant agreement.
Compliance with these service standards is a shared responsibility. Applicants must submit all required documentation in a timely fashion.
5 EVALUATION
In this section
5.1 Eligibility Criteria
- Represents an eligible recipient as defined in Section 3.1;
- Represents an eligible project as defined in Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4;
- Meets program funding provisions in Section 6.1.
An evaluation committee will first screen all applications according to the eligibility criteria described in Table 5 in ANNEX 1.
5.2 Evaluation Criteria
5.2.1 Graded Evaluation Criteria
Once the eligibility is confirmed, proposals will be evaluated in two (2) steps; the programmatic evaluation followed by the scientific merit review, using the following graded criteria. These criteria and ratings are listed in Table 3 and a detailed description can be found in ANNEX 2. Proposals passing the programmatic evaluation will then be considered for the scientific merit review based on criteria described in Section 5.2.2.
| Criteria | Maximum score | Passing score |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Benefits to Canada and Outcomes | ||
| 1.1 Alignment with CSA priorities and HLS program | 8 | 4 |
| 1.2 Link to future space studies | 8 | 4 |
| 1.3 Benefits on Earth | 4 | 2 |
| 1.4 Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) | 4 | 2 |
| 2. Project Feasibility, Resources, and Risk Assessment | ||
| 2.1 Budget and Resource allocation, and Schedule | 8 | 4 |
| 2.2 Risk Management and mitigation strategies | 8 | 4 |
| Total | 40 | 20 |
5.2.2 Evaluation Criteria for Scientific Merit Review
The scientific merit review will be conducted by a panel of scientific experts according to the language ladder listed in Table 4. A detailed description of each criterion can be found in ANNEX 3. For any given criterion, a score within the associated range will be given by each reviewer of the three (3) reviewers assigned to the proposal. A consensus rating is then decided amongst the reviewers. Finally, all the committee members not in conflict with the proposal under evaluation are asked to vote (+/- 10% of the consensus rating) for the final rating of the proposal. The scientific merit review panel will assign a score from 0 to 60 or a designation "not recommended for further consideration" based on the intrinsic scientific merit to all proposals not meeting the minimal score for the scientific merit criteria. Passing proposals must receive at least a minimal score for each criterion and obtain a total score of at least 42 (70%), which is higher than the sum of all the minimal scores.
Sex and gender differences, as well as differences due to other intersecting identity factors (e.g.: race; indigeneity) exist in space-related health risks, making these issues an important component of this AO. Therefore, the CSA strongly encourage applicants to consider biological sex as a biological variable and gender as a socio-cultural factor into their research designs, methods, analysis and/or dissemination of findings, when appropriate.
| Criteria | Maximum score | Passing score | Poor | Average | Good | Excellent |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Rationale | 20 | 11 | 0-5 | 6-10 | 11-15 | 16-20 |
| 2. Methodology | 20 | 11 | 0-5 | 6-10 | 11-15 | 16-20 |
| 3. Expertise | 20 | 11 | 0-5 | 6-10 | 11-15 | 16-20 |
| Total | 60 | 42Footnote 1 | ||||
5.3 Evaluation Process
Only applications that have passed the eligibility assessment listed in Section 5.1 will be given further consideration.
Once the eligibility criteria are confirmed, evaluators will assess the screened applications according to the criteria listed in Section 5.2. Evaluators shall be experts in the fields relevant to the applications and may include representatives of Canada and other countries, and representatives of other government and non-government agencies and organizations. If applicable, a multidisciplinary evaluation committee will be formed when applications from several different disciplines are competing in order to provide a uniform final score and ranking of proposals.
Before a final decision is made, the CSA's Program Manager responsible for this AO may seek input and advice from other organizations, including (but not limited to) federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal government agencies and organizations.
Grant agreements will be offered to the applicants in the rank order, based on total score, of proposals in each category (in other words, there will be separate ranked lists for Data Mining and Research Models), while allowing considerations to maximize the use of available funding. However, the results obtained in this selection process could take into account certain factors in the final decision to grant funding, such as representation of PI to one of the four (4) designated groups: women, Aboriginal people, disabled persons, or members of a visible minority, regional distribution, diversity among universities/organizations and post-secondary institutions, etc.
6 FUNDING
In this section
6.1 Available Funding and Duration
Transfer payments will be made through grant agreements. In all cases, the maximum funding includes overhead costs. The two (2) funding categories are:
Category 1 - DM: up to $75,000 for a maximum duration of one (1) year.
Category 2 - RM: up to $180,000 for a maximum duration of two (2) years.
The number of projects funded under this AO will depend on funding availability.
There is no limit on the number of proposals submitted per investigator. However, considering the limited funding in this AO, the CSA will only fund one (1) project for a researcher as a PI in this AO in DM, and only one (1) in RM. However, it is possible for an investigator to be selected for funding in Category 1 - DM and Category 2 - RM.
The CSA reserves the right to reject any proposals or reduce the amount of the grants at its entire discretion.
Approved proposals will be eligible for a total amount of government assistance (federal, provincial, territorial, and municipal) of up to 100% of total project costs.
To determine the amount of funding to be allocated, consideration will be given to the availability of CSA funds, the total cost of the project, and the other confirmed sources of funds provided by other stakeholders and the applicant.
Applicants must identify all sources of funding in their applications and confirm this information in a funding agreement if the project is selected for funding. Upon completion of a project, the recipient must also disclose all sources of funding.
6.2 Eligible Costs
Eligible costs are direct expenses that are associated with the delivery of the approved project and that are required to achieve the expected results of the project. Expenses will be covered subject to the applicant signing a funding agreement, in the form of a grant with the CSA.
Applicants to this CSA AO cannot include as eligible costs any costs related to non-Canadian Co-Investigators or their work within the proposal. These costs should be submitted to the appropriate national agency for funding.
Eligible costs for grant under this AO are the following:
- Accommodation and meal allowances;
- Acquisition, development and printing of materials;
- Acquisition or rental of equipment;
- Bursaries (such as stipends for students involved in the project);
- Consultant services;
- Costs related to obtaining security clearance;
- Data acquisition (sample acquisition);
- Data management;
- Laboratory analysis services;
- License and permit fees;
- Marketing and printing services;
- Materials and supplies;
- Overhead (administrative) costs (not to exceed 20% of eligible costs for universities & post-secondary institutions and 15% for other eligible recipients);
- Participation fees at conferences, committees and events;
- PST, HST and GST net of any rebate to which the recipient is entitled and the reimbursement of any taxes for goods and services acquired in a foreign country net of any rebate or reimbursement received in the foreign country;
- Publication and communication services;
- Registration fees;
- Salaries and benefits;
- Training;
- Translation services;
- Travel;
7 FUNDING AGREEMENTS
In this section
7.1 Payments
The CSA and each successful applicant (the recipient) will sign a funding agreement. This is a condition for any payment made by the CSA with respect to the approved project.
For grant agreement, payments will be made in a lump sum or instalments as described in the signed agreement. Grant funding agreements will include a clause stipulating the recipient's obligation to confirm—once a year in the case of multi-year agreements—their eligibility for the G&C Program – Research Component and inform the CSA in writing of any changes to the conditions used in determining their eligibility for this component.
7.2 Audit
The recipient of a funding agreement shall keep proper records of all documentation related to the funded project, for the duration of the project and for six (6) years after the completion date of the project, in the event of an audit. This documentation shall be available upon request.
7.3 Conflict of Interest
In the funding agreement, the recipient will certify that any current or former public office holder or public servant it employs complies with the provisions of the relevant Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Public Office Holders and the Values and Ethics Code for the Public Sector respectively.
7.4 Intellectual Property
All intellectual property developed by the recipient in the course of the project shall vest in the recipient.
7.5 Organizations in Quebec
An organization in Quebec whose operations are partially or fully funded by the province of Quebec may be subject to the Act Respecting the Ministère du Conseil exécutif, R.S.Q., Chapter M-30.
Under Sections 3.11 and 3.12 of this Act, certain entities/organizations, as defined in the meaning of the Act, such as municipal bodies, school bodies, or public agencies, must obtain authorization from the Secrétariat du Québec aux relations canadiennes (SQRC), as indicated by the Act, before signing any funding agreement with the Government of Canada, its departments or agencies, or a federal public agency.
Consequently, any entity that is subject to the Act is responsible for obtaining such authorization before signing any funding agreement with the Government of Canada.
Quebec applicants must complete, sign, and include the M-30 Supporting Documentation form with their application.
7.6 Performance Measurement
The CSA will ask the recipients to report on certain aspects of their projects such as:
- Knowledge Creation
- Knowledge production (including publications)
- Presentations
- Intellectual property (including patents)
- Capacity Building
- Project's research team (including highly qualified personnel supported)
- Collaboration
- Partners' contributions
- Partnerships
- Multidisciplinarity
7.7 Open Science
CSA wishes to promote the dissemination of findings that results from the projects it funds as quickly and to the greatest number of people as possible. Improved access to scientific results not only allows scientists to use a broader range of resources and knowledge, but also improves research collaboration and coordination, strengthens citizen engagement, and supports the economy.
To this end, the CSA strongly encourages the use of open access publication and archiving by recipients to facilitate the widest dissemination of findings that results from its funded projects. Thus, recipients are invited to publish, in a timely matter, their articles by using one of the following methods:
- Accessible online repository (institutional or disciplinary) so that the publication is freely accessible.
- Journal offering open access to articles.
It should be noted that these two (2) methods are not mutually exclusive and that recipients are encouraged to use both.
Following result publications in journals, the recipients are encouraged to submit their final datasets to the CSA.
Finally, the CSA wishes to receive, as a courtesy, a copy of the funded publications (if not freely accessible) or the hyperlink (if freely accessible) and its digital object identifier (DOI). These will be used to promote accessibility by including them in the directory of CSA-funded publications.
8 PRIVACY NOTICE STATEMENT
The CSA manages and protects the information provided by the applicant under the Privacy Act and the Access to Information Act. By submitting your personal information, you consent to its collection, use and disclosure in accordance with the following Privacy Statement, which explains how the information about the applicant will be processed.
The information is collected under the CSA Class Grants and Contributions Program in Support of Awareness, Research and Learning - Research Component (ASC PPU 045) and Awareness and Learning Component (ASC PPU 040). This information will be used for administration and application evaluation purposes. Personal information (such as name, contact information and biographical information) will be kept for six (6) years and destroyed. According to the Privacy Act, any individual may, upon request, have access to his or her personal data and request correction of the incorrect information.
Applicants should also note that information relating to the Funding Agreement could be disclosed publicly in accordance with the laws, policies, and directives of the Government of Canada.
For additional information regarding this statement, please contact:
Office of Access to Information and Privacy
Canadian Space Agency
Tel.: 450-926-4866
Email: asc.aiprp-atip.csa@canada.ca
9 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
It is the responsibility of the applicants to obtain clarification of the requirements contained herein, if necessary, before applying.
For any questions related to the AO, applicants shall use the following generic email address (asc.santespatiale-spacehealth.csa@canada.ca). Questions and answers related to this AO will be posted on the CSA website in the Frequently Asked Questions section of this AO. The CSA will respond to questions received before 2:00 PM (EDT), .
At any point, applicants are welcome to share with the CSA their comments or suggestions regarding the program or the process. Applicants may either use the generic email address (asc.lecedessetc-thegandccoe.csa@canada.ca) or the generic web-based Comments and Suggestions Box available at http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/eng/resources/gc/comments-form.asp
ANNEX 1
| Criteria | Description | Scoring |
|---|---|---|
| Category 1 : (Data and sample mining) | This criterion assesses, for applications relating to Category 1 (Data and sample mining), that access to the data or samples is confirmed, as indicated in Section 1.0. | Pass Failure |
| Eligible recipients | This criterion evaluates whether the application has been submitted from an eligible recipient as defined in Section 3.1. | Pass Fail |
| Eligible projects | This criterion evaluates whether the application is an eligible project for this AO as defined in Section 3.2. | Pass Fail |
| Links to CSA priorities | This criterion evaluates how the project will contribute to the CSA priorities as defined in Section 3.3. | Pass Fail |
| Links to Class G&C Program Objectives | This criterion evaluates how the project will contribute to the G&C Program objectives, as defined in Section 3.4. | Pass Fail |
| Meets program funding provisions in Section 6.1 | This criterion evaluates whether the proposal meets program funding provisions described in Section 6.1 | Pass Fail |
ANNEX 2
In this section
Description of Programmatic Evaluation Criteria
1. Benefits to Canada and Outcomes:
1.1 Alignment with the priorities of the CSA and its HLS Program
Description:This criterion evaluates whether the proposed research objectives are aligned with the priorities of the CSA and its HLS program. Do the research objectives directly address health risks associated with human space flights (per Table 2)?
Minimum score required = 4
- Poor:
The research objectives in the proposal do not address a risk of human space flight as listed in Table 2. (Score: 0)
- Below average:
One (1) research objective in the proposal addresses a risk of human space flight as described in Table 2, but overall, the proposal only indirectly addresses this risk, or does not clearly demonstrate how the risk is addressed. (Score: 2)
- Average:
One (1) research objective in the proposal addresses one (1) direct risk of human space flight as described in Table 2 and describes how the risk is addressed, but the description is superficial or incomplete. (Score 4)
- Good:
Some of the research objectives in the proposal directly address one (1) or more risks of human space flight as described in Table 2 and the proposal clearly describes how the risk is addressed. (Score: 6)
- Excellent:
All research objectives in the proposal directly and clearly address one (1) or more risks of human space flight as described in Table 2. (Score: 8)
1.2 Link to future space studies
Description:This criterion evaluates whether the proposed research objectives are direct precursors of future Canadian research projects on the ISS or Lunar Gateway. Provide a detailed explanation of the investigation(s) that would logically follow from the proposed research, which would require the ISS or the Lunar Gateway.
- Explain clearly how the proposed research can lead to a future investigation on the ISS or the lunar Gateway.
- The research proposal should describe how the project will lead to novel operational countermeasure strategies against the risk of human spaceflight. List potential countermeasures, which could include preventative measures, interventions, treatments, etc.
Minimum score required = 4
- Poor:
The research objectives are not direct precursors of future Canadian research projects on the ISS or Lunar Gateway and do not encompass countermeasure strategies. (Score: 0)
- Below average:
The proposal does not clearly demonstrate how the research objectives will lead to a future space research project and potential countermeasure are not mentioned. (Score: 2)
- Average:
The proposal demonstrates how the research objectives using a model or data from a space analogue will lead to a future space research project, but this is not well justified. Potential countermeasures are briefly mentioned. (Score 4)
- Good:
The proposal explains in detail how the research objectives using a model or data from a space analogue will lead to a future space research projects and the description is justified, and potential countermeasures are listed. (Score: 6)
- Excellent:
The proposal clearly demonstrates how the research objectives using a model or data from a space analogue will lead to a future space research project and this explanation is well justified and provides a step-by-step plan to implement a follow-up investigation in space. Potential countermeasures are listed and clearly explained. (Score: 8)
1.3 Benefits on Earth:
Description: This criterion evaluates whether the proposal demonstrates that the proposed research may contribute to the advancement of our understanding of similar health issues or applications on Earth, or that could contribute to improving health care for Canadians. Provide a clear explanation of how specifically this research can bring benefits on Earth (e.g.: which specific population, how it will benefit that population, etc.).
Minimum score required = 4
- Poor:
The proposal does not address benefits on Earth, or the case for benefits is not clear or logical. (Score: 0)
- Below average:
The proposal indicates some benefits on Earth, but the justification for benefits is not well described and not fully clear. (Score 2)
- Average:
The proposal indicates benefits on Earth, and the justification is included but it is general, or lacks precision. (Score: 4)
- Good:
One (1) or more of the research objectives has direct Earth benefits. A specific justification is provided and adequate. (Score: 6)
- Excellent:
Justification on how the proposed research will directly contribute to the advancement of our understanding of similar health issues or to improve health care for Canadians is clear, thorough, and persuasive. (Score: 8)
1.4 Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI)
Description: This criterion evaluates whether the research team has in the past fostered the recruitment and engagement of members of underrepresented groups within the research team, and if EDI measures are part of the current proposal plan. Underrepresented groups include, but are not limited to, the following four (4) designated groups: women, Indigenous peoples, members of visible minorities, and persons with disabilities. Applicants can consult the Employment equity website for definitions of each group.
It also evaluates the different outreach activities proposed by investigators or the research team aiming the engagement and inclusion of underrepresented groups, inside or outside of the research laboratories or universities/institutions (e.g.: participation to committees and boards, conferences/colloquiums, workshops, and public dialogues).
- Note that journal club or lab meetings are not considered outreach activities with members of the underrepresented groups.
- Referencing the university policy is not considered a sufficient demonstration.
Minimum score required = 2
- Poor:
The proposal does not describe any measure to promote the diversity within the team and does not mention any outreach activities. (Score: 0)
- Average:
The proposal describes means that were taken in the past or future actions that will be taken to engage members of the underrepresented groups, or mentions one (1) outreach activity. (Score: 2)
- Excellent:
The proposal contains both means that were taken in the past as well as future actions that will be taken to recruit and engage members of underrepresented groups. The proposal also mentions at least one (1) outreach activity. (Score: 4)
2. Project Feasibility, Resources and Risk Assessment
2.1 Budget, Resources Allocation, and Schedule
Description: This criterion evaluates the adequacy of the budget, resource allocation to tasks (roles and responsibilities of students/HQPs should be detailed) and material resources as well as project schedule. Applicants must present in their application an itemized budget that clearly describes project expenditures and sources of funding. Justification for the requested funds needs to be complete. The application must also show resource (human & funds) allocation to tasks for each individual involved in the project, as well as project schedule. Applicants are encouraged to seek co-funding and should clearly indicate co-funding in their budget.
Minimum score required = 4
- Poor:
The proposal presents an incomplete or inadequate description of budget, resource allocation (roles and responsibilities), and schedule, and/or inadequate justification of project expenditures. (Score: 0)
- Below average:
The budget, resource allocation (roles and responsibilities) and schedule are presented, however, information is missing, or the justification of expenditure is incomplete, or some expenditures are misevaluated or unrealistic/exaggerated. (Score: 2)
- Average:
The budget, resource allocation (roles and responsibilities) and schedule are presented, however, some information may be missing, or the justification of expenditure may sometimes be incomplete, or some expenditures are not defined well enough. (Score: 4)
- Good:
Appropriate budget and allocation of resources (roles and responsibilities) are presented. Schedule planning is feasible and realistic. Justification of project expenditures is appropriate, with no major omissions. (Score: 6)
- Excellent:
The budget, resource allocation (roles and responsibilities) and schedule are presented in a detailed and clear manner. Justification of resources is clear and comprehensive. The allocation of resources with clear and comprehensive justification are provided. (Score: 8)
2.2 Risk Management and Mitigation strategies
Description: This criterion evaluates the identification of potential pitfalls and obstacles that may occur during the project, as well as the adequacy of proposed preventive/remedial measures. The proposal shall address key risks associated with the project and the mitigation strategies for each. Information should be provided on resource availability, risks associated with their non-availability and, the risk and mitigation strategies associated with those risks. The following points are particularly important:
- Has the applicant identified and described in detail the risks associated with the project, including, but not limited to, financial, technical (e.g.: execution of research protocols, Research Ethics Boards approval), and managerial risks (e.g.: human resource back-up plans in case of departure of a team member(s))?
- Are the resources available to the research team, or was an agreement made to ensure implementation of the project?
- Are the mitigation strategies for each risk correctly addressed and realistic?
Minimum score required = 4
- Poor:
The proposal does not identify any key risks or mitigation strategies, or some risks may be identified but related mitigation strategies are missing. (Score: 0)
- Below average:
The proposal identified risks, but the related mitigation strategies proposed appear inadequate (Score 2).
- Average:
The proposal identified some, but not all, key risks and their mitigation strategies are defined. However, the information provided is not sufficient and some details are missing. (Score: 4)
- Good:
The proposal demonstrates general understanding of key risks and potential pitfalls for this type of project and proposes elements of preventive/remedial measures to ensure feasibility of the study and their justification is well developed. (Score: 6)
- Excellent:
The proposal demonstrates clear understanding of key risks and obstacles/pitfalls accompanied by a thorough and adequate discussion of preventive/remedial measures to ensure completion of the study with quality results. Key risks and their mitigation strategies are well described, and the risk assessment is realistic. (Score: 8)
ANNEX 3
In this section
Description of Evaluation Criteria for Scientific Merit
1. Rational
Description: This criterion evaluates whether the proposal addresses a significant gap in health research related to spaceflight and if the research approach is built upon a successful foundation of relevant published research. The significance of the proposed research in terms of the hypotheses/research questions addressed as well as novelty will be assessed. Potential increase of our understanding of the risks associated with human spaceflight or proposed mitigation strategies will be evaluated.
- Does this study address an important gap in identifying, characterizing and mitigating health risk for spaceflight?
- If the objectives are achieved, how will scientific knowledge related to spaceflight health risks be advanced?
- What are the expected outcomes of the proposed research in the context of understanding health risk problems related to spaceflight and/or mitigation strategies?
Minimum score required = 11
- Poor:
The hypotheses and research questions do not address an important health risk related to spaceflight or do not provide any mitigation strategy. The research approach is not based upon a successful foundation of relevant previous studies. (Score: 0-5)
- Average:
The hypotheses and research questions address health risk related to spaceflight or propose a mitigation strategy. However, the study will only marginally increase our understanding of the risks of human spaceflight or provide minor insights into mitigation strategies. Also, the research approach is based in part upon a successful foundation of relevant previous studies. The research question will most likely result in limited novel knowledge generation. (Score: 6-10)
- Good:
The hypotheses and research questions address an important health risk related to spaceflight or propose a credible mitigation strategy. The study is also likely to increase our understanding of the risks of human spaceflight or can lead to concrete insights to provide mitigation strategies. The project is likely to result in novel knowledge generation and is based upon a successful foundation of relevant previous studies. (Score: 11-15).
- Excellent:
The hypotheses and research questions address one (1) or several important health risks related to spaceflight or propose a substantial mitigation strategy. The study is likely to result in significant scientific understanding of the risks of human spaceflight or can lead to the development of new countermeasures. The research approach is largely based upon a successful foundation of relevant previous studies. Results of this project will most likely considerably contribute to significant scientific knowledge advances in the field. (Score: 16-20)
2. Methodology
Description: This criterion evaluates the appropriateness of the proposed research design, research methods and data analysis methods to achieve the objectives. In addition, assessment of the integration of biological sex and/or gender will be taken into consideration.
- Is the selected set of data or samples (for Category 1) or research models (for Category 2) appropriate for the proposed research objectives?
- Are the research design, methods and analysis proposed appropriate to achieve the objectives?
- Do the objectives integrate biological sex and/or gender into research, if applicable?
Minimum score required: 11
- Poor:
The proposed methodology is unlikely to support the objectives of the study or is poorly described. The research design lacks important details, the selected approach is not appropriate, the choice of data/samples (for Category 1) or research models (for Category 2) is not well justified, and there is no integration of biological sex and/or gender into the proposed research (when applicable). (Score: 0-5)
- Average:
The proposed methodology may support the study's objectives. However, there is a lack of details in research design and/or the selected approach is poorly described. The choice of data/samples (for Category 1) or research models (for Category 2), and integration of biological sex and/or gender (when applicable) is justified, but there is a clear risk that the proposed approach cannot fully address the research questions. There may be better approaches to achieve the objectives. (Score: 6-10)
- Good:
The proposed methodology is likely to achieve the objectives and well described. The research design, the selected approach, the choice of data/samples (for Category 1) or research models (for Category 2), and integration of biological sex and/or gender (when applicable), are justified and are aligned with the research question. However, additional approaches could have been included to fully address the research questions. (Score: 11-15)
- Excellent:
The proposed methodology is excellent and clearly described, giving a high level of confidence that the objectives will be achieved. The research design, the selected approach, the choice of data/samples (for Category 1) or research models (for Category 2), and integration of biological sex and/or gender (when applicable), are well justified and described. The proposed methodology fully addresses the research questions. (Score: 16-20)
3. Expertise
Description: This criterion evaluates the availability of all the required expertise and experience in the proposed field of HLS research to successfully accomplish the proposed work. This criterion will also evaluate the scientific productivity and past achievements in the proposed field of research and methodology.
- Does the researcher or team members have sufficient experience in Health and Life Science (HLS)?
- Does the researcher of team members (when applicable) have the required expertise? Is there sufficient personnel dedicated to the project?
- Has the researcher demonstrated a high level of productivity/high impact work, commensurate with the career stage of the team members, and considering extenuating factors?
Minimum score required: 11
- Poor:
The PI or team members (when applicable) have some expertise or experience in similar research studies, but it is rather poor or limited. The scientific productivity in this field of research (commensurate with the career stage of the team members, and considering extenuating factors) is poor and below an acceptable level of quality, impact and/or importance. (Score: 0-5)
- Average:
The PI or team members (when applicable) have expertise and experience in the field of research, but the overall level of expertise in the team is average. The scientific productivity in this field of research (commensurate with the career stage of the team members, and considering extenuating factors) is average with acceptable level of quality, impact and/or importance. (Score: 6-10)
- Good:
The PI or the team (when applicable) include members that have the required expertise in the field and demonstrated experience in similar studies. The PI or team have a good publication record of high quality, impact and/or importance (commensurate with the career stage of the team members, and considering extenuating factors) . Personnel dedicated to the project is sufficient. (Score: 11-15)
- Excellent:
The PI or team are experts in the proposed field of research. The PI or team have a clear expertise in the field and has successfully conducted studies of similar scope. The researcher or team members (when applicable) have a solid publication record of high quality, impact and/or importance (commensurate with the career stage of the team members and considering extenuating factors). Personnel dedicated to the project is sufficient. (Score: 16-20)