Language selection

Search


Top of page

Announcement of Opportunity (AO) for Health and Life Science Research on International Space Station

On this page

  1. INTRODUCTION
  2. AO OBJECTIVES
  3. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA
  4. APPLICATIONS
  5. EVALUATION
  6. FUNDING
  7. FUNDING AGREEMENTS
  8. PRIVACY NOTICE STATEMENT
  9. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
  10. APPENDIX 1: Structure for the detailed project description
  11. APPENDIX 2: Description of Eligibility Assessment Criteria
  12. APPENDIX 3: Description of Programmatic Criteria
  13. APPENDIX 4: Description of Evaluation Criteria for Scientific Merit
  14. APPENDIX 5: Description of Feasibility Evaluation Criteria

Publication date

Applications due .

Summary of Key Information

  • Eligible recipients: Canadian universities and not-for-profit research organizations established and operating in Canada
  • Type of transfer payment: funding by non-repayable contributions
  • Total budget of up to $8,445,000 for new Canadian projects
  • Information regarding the webinar

 

1 INTRODUCTION

Future human exploration of space is expected to go beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to targets such as the Moon and Mars. The resulting expeditions will lead to extended periods of exposure to different gravitational fields and space radiation in addition to confinement and isolation in the extreme environment of space, all of which are linked to substantial health and performance risks. The Canadian Space Agency (CSA) is interested in human spaceflight and maintaining a healthy and highly qualified astronaut corps capable of participating in space exploration missions. To support this goal, the CSA's Health and Life Sciences (HLS) group supports activities generating knowledge in fields that sustain human space flights, mitigate health risks, and lead to countermeasures for those missions.

Canadian utilization of the International Space Station (ISS) focuses on research that addresses the health risks of spaceflight. Therefore, proposed research should clearly address these health risks (Table 1). Eligible proposals must lead to a better understanding of these risks or generate information supporting the development of countermeasures. Proposals using human subjects or model organisms to address these risks are acceptable.

The aim of the present Announcement of Opportunity (AO) is to solicit proposals to investigate health risks associated with space travel using research facilities on the ISS. Since crew time, stowage, and conditioned stowage (not ambient temperature), as well as launch mass allocations are very limited, the proposed experiments must minimize these resource requirements. Therefore, operational and experimental procedures must be optimized accordingly.

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.

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. Therefore, applicants are asked to read the following AO thoroughly before submitting their application. 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

Through this AO, the CSA is seeking to financially support Canadian researchers who will design and implement scientific protocols to investigate health risks associated with space travel. More specifically, selected projects shall:

3 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

In this section

3.1 Eligible Recipients

Eligible recipients (beneficiaries) for contributions are:

  • 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 (REB)/ 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) in a new research project. There is no limit on the number of proposals presented per investigator.

Eligible projects are innovative space life science studies to be conducted on the ISS using human subjects or non-human research models, including plants to address nutrient composition related to crew dietary needs. The list of available ISS biological research facilities can be found using the Space Station Research Explorer web site. Facilities identified as ‘Retired' will not be considered. The availability of these facilities will need to be confirmed before the project can be funded. Projects based on previous ISS investigations, which include expanded scientific objectives, are also eligible. If successful in the review process, they may be chosen for the first wave of implementation on the ISS. Selected recipients will be required to sign a collaboration agreement with the CSA.

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 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. Details of eligible costs of the projects financed under this AO are listed in Section 6.2.

3.3 Alignment with CSA priorities

To be eligible, projects supported under this AO must be aligned with CSA priority outcomes as stated in the  Departmental plan. In accordance to its mandate, the activities selected must generate new knowledge and insight into the risks of human space flight to keep astronauts healthy in space (Space Strategy for Canada, ). Health risks targeted by CSA and associated with human space flights (i.e., future long-duration human spaceflight missions) have been identified and are listed in Table 1.

Table 1 – Eligible Human Space Flight Risks
Musculoskeletal and Cardiorespiratory 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 psychosocial adaptation, stress and fatigue, cognitive deterioration, or issues with team dynamics
Radiation Mission risk due to health and performance impairment associated with radiation damage
Hypogravity Mission risks associated with physiological adaptation (including Spaceflight-Associated Neuro-Ocular 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
Environmental Exposure Mission and long-term health effects associated with exposure to toxic substances or virulent microorganisms

In addition to fundamental research on health risks of spaceflight, the CSA encourages proposals aiming to develop and test countermeasures to mitigate these risks. Furthermore, the following specific needs for health and medical support of spaceflight crews are relevant to this AO:

  • Additional methods to monitor disorders related to sleep and fatigue;
  • Methods to monitor crewmembers in an integrated fashion, linking cognition, mood, exercise etc.;
  • Methods to monitor mental health during extended space missions;
  • Approaches to better predict physiological changes in space with an impact on health or performance;
  • Further understanding of the variation among crewmembers regarding the adaptation to space and readaptation to a gravitational environment after prolonged exposure to microgravity;
  • Interaction of nutritional and energy status and physiological systems;
  • Non-pharmacological approaches to musculoskeletal pain and injury management;
  • Understanding post-flight recovery of physiological systems and optimizing reconditioning strategies.
  • Research into non-cancer and cancer health risks due to space radiation exposures
  • Research/development on individualized radiation protection measures based on individual radiation sensitivities.

In addition to the risks listed in the table above, the CSA will also evaluate if the proposal would contribute to advancing the understanding of similar health issues on Earth, could contribute to improving health and health care for all Canadians, or translate to applications on Earth, with specific emphasis on scientific advances that directly impact the delivery of health care to remote and isolated communities in Canada.

3.4 Links to the Class Grants and Contributions Program Objectives

To be eligible, projects supported under this AO must contribute to the achievement of at least one of the following objectives:

  • To support the development of science and technology relevant to the priorities of the CSA;
  • To foster the continuing development of a critical mass of researchers and HQPs in Canada in areas relevant to the priorities of the CSA;
  • To support information gathering, studies and research related to space.

4 APPLICATIONS

In this section

4.1 Required Documentation

A structure for the detailed project description is included in Appendix 1. Applicants are strongly encouraged to follow this structure.

Applicants are required to submit a full proposal prepared in French or in English, which shall include:

  • A completed original application form (Word, 105 KB) signed by the duly authorized representative and the PI of the proposed project as stipulated in section 3.2;
  • A copy of the document(s) confirming the legal name of the applicant (must be confirmed by the organization's Office of Research);
  • Letters from other funding contributors confirming their contributions, if applicable;
  • 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); and
  • 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).
  • 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 the original documents will be required at the time of the signing of the agreement.
  • For Canadian Co-Is involved in an international study, a letter from the international PI is required, confirming that the proposed work by the Canadian Co-Is will enhance the study;
  • Letter of support from Co-Is confirming their intent to participate to the study, including information on the potential source of funds, if applicable;
  • The applicant will ensure that ethical certification requirements are met throughout the study. A letter signed by the chairperson of the local Research Ethics Board (REB) regarding approval of the experimental protocol using human subjects will be required to that effect or Animal Care Committee (when required). Ethics approval letters for any subsequent protocol amendments must also be forwarded to the CSA;
  • A Data Management Plan shall be provided with the proposal that addresses:
    • Type(s) of data products;
    • Short-term data preservation approach;
    • Long-term data preservation/archiving approach;
    • Format(s) for data and metadata;
    • Sharing and reuse of the data, when applicable;
    • Roles and responsibilities for data management within the team.

It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that the application complies with all relevant Canadian legislation and bylaws (federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal).

Before the investigation transitions to the operational phase, recipients will be required to submit to the CSA evidence of approval from institutional and space agency REB, if relevant.

The electronically uploaded application must be prepared as a single PDF-formatted file containing all the above requested documents with all security features disabled. You are required to order the document with the application form and proposal first. The proposal and supporting documents must be included in the file as searchable PDF-formatted documents (PDF/A-1a or PDF/A-2a formats preferred). If there are any accessibility issues with the submitted PDF file, all consequences will reside with the applicant.

The applicant must keep one 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. 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;
  • 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 2:00 PM (EDT) to obtain instructions on how to submit a paper application by mail.

For application sent by mail, one original paper copy of the full proposal, with a completed original application form (Word, 105 KB) signed by the duly authorized representative is required. In addition, one (1) copy of the application (identical to the signed paper copy) in a PDF file (on a USB flash drive) is required. If there is any discrepancy between the hard and the soft version, the hard copy takes precedence.

Applications by mail must be received at the CSA 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).

Important information:

  • Proposals must be received at the CSA no later than at 2:00 PM (EDT).
  • Applications sent by email will not be accepted.
  • Incomplete applications may not be considered.

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

Applicants will be notified in writing of decisions regarding their application. Selected applications will be announced on the CSA website. The CSA has set the following service standards for processing times, acknowledgement of receipt, funding decisions and payment procedures.

Acknowledgement: The CSA's goal is to acknowledge receipt of proposals within two (2) weeks of receiving the completed application package.

Decision: The CSA's goal is to respond to the proposal within 46 weeks of the AO's closing date and to send a contribution agreement for signature within 16 weeks after formal approval of the proposal.

Payment: The CSA's goal is to issue payment within six weeks of the successful fulfillment of the requirements outlined in the contribution agreement.

Compliance with these service standards is a shared responsibility. Applicants must submit all required documentation in a timely fashion. Service standards may vary by Announcement of Opportunity.

5 EVALUATION

In this section

5.1 Evaluation Process

Applications will first be evaluated for eligibility. Only applications that have passed the eligibility assessment described in (Section 5.2) will be given further consideration.

Once the eligibility is confirmed, full proposals will then undergo a programmatic evaluation (Section 5.3) based on criteria such as benefits to Canada, project feasibility, resources, results and impacts as well as risk and risk mitigation measures. This step will be followed by a scientific merit review based on the peer-review criteria (Section 5.4). The scientific merit review will be conducted by a panel of scientific or technical experts. The number and diversity of experts required will be determined by the response to this research announcement and by the variety of disciplines represented in the proposals. The scientific merit review panel will assign a score from 0 to 100 or a designation of "not recommended for further consideration" based upon the intrinsic scientific merit of the proposal. 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. This score will reflect the consensus of the panel. Proposals that receive a score in the scientific merit review that is lower than 70/100 will not be further evaluated.

Following a successful scientific review, proposals will undergo a flight feasibility review as described in Section 5.5 to determine if their implementation on the ISS is possible. A team of CSA engineers and scientists experienced in the development, integration, and operation of space flight experiments will conduct this review. For this reason, experimental requirements and procedures should be clearly and succinctly explained. Applicants should include all needed equipment for pre-flight, in-flight, and post-flight data collection. The NASA Space Station Research Explorer can be consulted with regards to equipment that may be available (except facilities that are indicated as ‘retired').

This assessment will be based on criteria listed in Table 4 and will rate the feasibility as Low, Intermediate or High. This step will influence the final list of selected proposals. To best fit Canadian ISS resources, some proposals which passed the programmatic and scientific review may not be considered based on the feasibility evaluation. It should also be noted that some proposals with lower feasibility but with high impact from a scientific merit may still be considered.

The final score for each proposal will be based on the score for program alignment (50%) and science merit (50%). Funding agreements will be offered to the applicants in the rank order of the proposals while allowing considerations to maximize the use of available funding. The number of projects funded under this AO will depend on funding and resource availability.

5.2 Eligibility assessment

Eligibility of proposals will be based on these aspects:

  • Represents an eligible recipient as defined in Section 3.1;
  • Represents an eligible project as defined in Sections 3.23.3 and 3.4;

An evaluation committee will screen applications according to the eligibility criteria described in Table 5 in Appendix 2.

5.3 Programmatic evaluation

Submissions will be evaluated using the graded criteria listed in Table 2. A detailed description of these criteria can be found in Appendix 3.

Table 2. Summary Table of Programmatic Criteria
Criteria Max score Min score Poor Average Good Excellent
1.Benefits to Canada 55 27
1.1 Alignment with the priorities of the CSA and its HLS Program 25 15 0 15 20 25
1.2 Benefits on Earth 20 10 0 10 15 20
1.3 HQP development 5 1 0 1 3 5
1.4 Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) 5 1 0 1 3 5
2. Project FeasibilityFootnote 1, Resources, and Risk Assessment 40 20
2.1 Budget, Resources Allocation, and schedule 20 10 0 10 15 20
2.2 Risk Management 20 10 0 10 15 20
3. Science dissemination plan 5 1 0 1 3 5
Total 100 60Footnote 2

5.4 Scientific Merit evaluation

The eligible projects will then undergo a scientific merit peer-review that will be conducted based on the criteria in Table 3. To be considered eligible for funding, the total score obtained for these graded criteria must be at least 70/100.

The scientific merit review will be conducted by a panel of scientific experts according to the language ladder listed in Table 3 and a detailed description of each criterion can be found in Appendix 4. For any given criterion, a score within the associated range will be assigned by each reviewer. The scientific merit review panel will assign a score from 0 to 100 or a designation "not recommended for further consideration" based on the intrinsic scientific merit of the proposal. Passing proposals must receive at least a minimal score for each criterion and obtain a total score of at least 70, which is higher than the sum of all the minimal scores. The peer-review panel will also provide comments to the CSA on the proposed budget.

Sex and gender differences, as well as differences due to other intersecting identity factors exist in space-related health risks, making these issues an important component of this AO. Therefore, the CSA strongly encourages 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.

Table 3 - Science Merit Scores
Criteria Maximum points for evaluation Minimum to pass Poor Average Good Excellent
Science quality 40 20
Originality 20 10 0-4 5-9 10-15 16-20
Impact 20 10 0-4 5-9 10-15 16-20
Research approach 30 18
Validity 10 6 0-2 3-4 5-6 7-10
Methodology 10 6 0-2 3-4 5-6 7-10
Potential pitfalls 10 6 0-2 3-4 5-6 7-10
Research team 30 10
Expertise and complementarity 15 5 0-4 5-8 9-12 13-15
Experience and productivity 15 5 0-4 5-8 9-12 13-15
Total 100 70Footnote 3

5.5 Technical Feasibility assessment

A technical feasibility review will be conducted for each flight experiment proposal that receives a scientific merit score greater than 70%. A team of engineers and scientists experienced in the development, integration and operation of space flight experiments will conduct this review, using criteria listed in Table 4 and described in detail in Appendix 5. The criteria take into consideration that certain experimental procedures, while not impossible to perform, are difficult to implement during ISS operations. Table 4 provides criteria that could be used to justify the assessment, as an example. Results of the technical feasibility assessment may affect the rank of proposals in the final list, or even exclude some proposals due to the lack of resources required or the impossibility to implement the investigation.

Table 4 – Feasibility evaluation criteria
Criteria Feasibility
Low Intermediate High
All investigations
In-flight activity scheduling Difficult Some constraints Easy
New hardware development Design of new instrument Certification of COTSFootnote 4 equipment No new hardware development required
On-orbit facility availability Facility is not available Facility can be launched or is available on orbit No facility required
Conditioned stowage requirement Required during launch, on-board activities and return Required only during launch and pre-ops
Or
Only post-ops and return
No conditioned stowage required
Late Load Several hours before launch Several days before launch More than one (1) week before launch
On-orbit operations Complex on-orbit operations and/or numerous activities Limited on-board activities Only pre/post-flight activities
Human research
Pre-Flight Baseline Data Collection (BDC) High complexity Intermediate
complexity
Low complexity
Post-Flight BDC High complexity Intermediate
complexity
Low complexity
In flight crew time per subject More than fifteen (15) hours Between five (5) and fifteen (15) hours Less than five (5) hours
Number of subjects Higher than 20 subjects Between 20 and 15 subjects Up to 14 subjects
Transportation to and from orbit per subject Launch and return of more than 2 kg of sample or equipment Launch and return of 1 to 2 kg of sample or equipment Launch and return of less than 1 kg of sample or equipment
Non-human research
Choice of Model organism Mammalian models (extremely difficult to implement) Invertebrate animal or vascular plant Micro-organism or cell/organoid
Environmental Requirements High complexity Intermediate
complexity
Low complexity
Experimental Design Complex, with numerous treatment factors and/or control treatments Limited number of conditions or manipulations Simple design and limited operations by crew

6 FUNDING

In this section

6.1 Available Funding and Duration

The maximum funding amount given in contribution for each project will be $1,206,000 for new Canadian projects over a maximum period of six (6) years.

The number of projects funded under this AO will depend on funding availability.

The CSA reserves the right to reject any proposals or reduce the amount of the contributions at its entire discretion.

Approved proposals will be eligible for a total amount of Canadian 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 associated with the delivery of the approved project and that are required to achieve the expected results of the project.

For this AO, recipients will not be responsible for costs of integration, launch, and operation of their study on the ISS. However, the recipients will be responsible for supplying extensive documentation to support the development, integration, and operation of their study. Typically, a minimum of 0.5 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) is required for this.

Note that for this CSA AO your proposal cannot include as eligible any costs related to non-Canadian-based Co-Is or non-Canadian-based PIs or their work within the proposal. These costs should be submitted to the appropriate national agency for funding.

Expenses will be covered subject to the applicant signing a funding agreement, in the form of a contribution, with the CSA.

The eligible costs for contributions under this AO are the following:

  • Access fees;
  • Accommodation and meals allowances;
  • Acquisition, development and printing of materials;
  • Acquisition or rental of equipment;
  • Consultant services;
  • Data acquisition;
  • Data management;
  • Laboratory analysis services;
  • Licenses and permits fees;
  • Material and supplies;
  • Overhead (administrative) costs (not to exceed 20% of eligible costs for Canadian universities 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 to 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;
  • Salaries and benefits;
  • Translation services; and
  • Travel.

7 FUNDING AGREEMENTS

In this section

7.1 Payments

The CSA and each of the successful applicants (the recipients) will sign a funding agreement which is a condition for any payment made by the CSA with respect to the approved project.

Payments for contribution agreements will be made in accordance with the process and the reporting requirements described in the signed funding agreement. Upon notice of a successful application, the CSA will have no liability until a funding agreement is signed by both parties. Only eligible costs incurred after the funding agreement is signed and indicated in the agreement will be reimbursed.

Contribution agreements will have the following structure:

  1. Year 1: Development of requirements. A comprehensive science requirement assessment will be done, during the first year of the project, by the CSA and possibly, if deemed useful by the CSA, such review may involve ISS partners. At the conclusion of Year 1, the CSA will decide on proceeding to Years 2 to 6. The CSA may decide to stop the project at this stage, for reasons of feasibility, lack of resources, or for example lack of Co-I funding by an international partner, or changes in programmatic direction. The CSA may also decide to limit subsequent funding to a shorter operational period.
  2. Years 2 to 6: Integration and Operations. During years 2 to 6 the CSA will integrate the activity into ISS planning, and then operate the study on the ISS.

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 former public office holder or public servant it employs complies with the provisions of the relevant Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code for Former 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 during the project shall vest in the recipient. When applicable, the funding agreement will include a provision granting to the CSA a non-exclusive, irrevocable, world-wide, free and royalty-free licence in perpetuity to use or sub-licence the use of any such intellectual property contained in recipient's reports for non-commercial governmental purposes.

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, L.R.Q., Chapter M-30.

Under Sections 3.11 and 3.12 of this Act, certain entities/organizations, as defined in this Act, such as municipal bodies, school bodies, or public agencies, must obtain an authorization by the Secrétariat du Québec aux affaires 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 this 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 an annual basis 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 HQPs supported)
  • Collaboration
    • Partners' contributions
    • Partnerships
    • Multidisciplinarity

As a courtesy, the CSA would like to receive a copy of publications arising from the work, and to be informed in advance of significant press releases or media interest resulting from the work.

7.7 Open Access Publications

If publications result from the project, the CSA wishes to promote the dissemination of findings that result 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.

The CSA therefore promotes 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 manner, their articles by using at least one (1) of the following methods:

  1. Accessible online repository (institutional or disciplinary) so that the publication is freely accessible.
  2. 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.

Finally, the CSA wishes to receive, as a courtesy, a copy of the publications (if not freely accessible) or the hyperlink (if freely accessible) and its digital object identifier (DOI). These will be used to improve accessibility by including them in the CSA publications directory.

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 6 years and destroyed. According to the Privacy Act, any individual may, upon request, (1) have access to his or her personal data and (2) 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.: 514-378-6174
Email: aiprp-atip@asc-csa.gc.ca

9 FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)

It is the responsibility of the applicants to obtain clarification of the requirements contained herein, if necessary, before submitting an application.

For any questions related to the AO, applicants shall use the following generic email address (santespatiale-spacehealth@asc-csa.gc.ca). Questions and answers related to this AO will be posted on the CSA website in the FAQ section of this AO. The CSA will respond to questions received before at 4 PM (EST).

On , the CSA will hold a bilingual webinar to inform the Life Science community about this opportunity and answer questions related to the announcement. Registration to this webinar held through MS Teams is free and mandatory. If you are interested in attending this online event, please send an email with your name, email address, institution, position and area of research, to the following address: Santé Spatiale-Space Health (ASC/CSA) (santespatiale-spacehealth@asc-csa.gc.ca). Connection information (internet and telephone) will be provided to you by email.

At any point, applicants are welcome to share with the CSA their comments or suggestions regarding the AO, the program or the process. Applicants may either use the generic email address (lecedessetc-thegandccoe@asc-csa.gc.ca) or the web-based Comments and Suggestions Box available at Grants and contributions.

APPENDIX 1: Structure for the detailed project description

This document should contain sufficient detail to enable a reviewer to make informed judgments about the overall merit of the proposed research and the probability that the investigators will be able to accomplish their stated objectives. It should clearly indicate the relationship between the proposed work and the research emphases defined in the announcement. The development of a clear hypothesis, along with the available data evidence, should be emphasized. In addition, the proposal should provide evidence of completed or planned ground research to justify the flight experiment.

The cover page of the description must contain the title of the proposal, the name of the principal investigator and the legal name of the organization requesting the Contribution. The detailed description (maximum of 20 pages, excluding references) must include the following material:

  1. Summary
  2. Background
  3. Relevance to the announcement priorities
  4. Research hypotheses
  5. Methodology
  6. Research team's experience, roles, and responsibilities
  7. Requirement for in situ analysis
  8. Training plan
  9. Data management plan
  10. References

The document must be provided in a commonly used format (.DOC, .DOCX, .PDF, .RTF, .TXT), 12 pt type face, letter sized paper and 2.54 cm (1") margins.

APPENDIX 2: Description of Eligibility Assessment Criteria

Table 5 - Summary of eligibility criteria
Criteria Description Scoring
Eligibility of the applicant This criterion evaluates whether the application has been submitted from an eligible recipient as defined in Section 3.1.

Pass
Definition: The organization is an eligible recipient for a contribution as described in Section 3.1 of this AO.
Fail
Definition: The organization is not an eligible recipient for a contribution as described in Section 3.1 of this AO.

Eligibility of the project This criterion evaluates whether the application is an eligible project for this AO as defined in Section 3.2.

Pass
Definition: The project is eligible for a contribution as described in Section 3.2 of this AO.
Fail
Definition: The project is not eligible for a contribution as described in Section 3.2 of this AO.

Alignment with CSA priorities This criterion evaluates how the project will contribute to the CSA priorities as defined in Section 3.3.

Pass
Definition: The proposal clearly demonstrates that the research objectives directly address one (1) or more health risks or needs for medical support of human space flight as described in Section 3.3.
Fail
Definition: The research does not address a risk or needs for medical support of human space flight as described in Section 3.3 or only indirectly addresses them.

Alignment with G&C Program priorities This criterion evaluates how the project will contribute to the G&C Program objectives, as defined in Section 3.4.

Pass
Definition: The proposal clearly demonstrates how the project will contribute to support the development of science and technology relevant to the priorities of the CSA, and that it will foster the continuing development of a critical mass of researchers and HQPs in Canada in areas relevant to the priorities of the CSA.
Fail
Definition: The proposal does not demonstrate how the project will contribute to support the development of science and technology relevant to the priorities of the CSA or that it will foster the continuing development of a critical mass of researchers and HQPs in Canada in areas relevant to the priorities of the CSA.

APPENDIX 3

In this section

1. Benefits to Canada

1.1 Alignment with the priorities of the CSA and its Space Health & Life Sciences 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 or needs for health and medical support (CSA priorities in section 3.3)?

Minimum score required = 15

Poor:

The research objectives in the proposal do not address a risk or medical needs of human space flight as listed in section 3.3. (Score: 0)

Average:

One (1) research objective in the proposal addresses one (1) direct risk or medical needs of human space flight as described in in section 3.3 and describes how the risk is addressed, but the description is superficial or incomplete. (Score 15)

Good:

At least one (1) of the research objectives in the proposal directly address one (1) or more risks or medical needs of human space flight as described in section 3.3 and the proposal clearly describes how the risk is addressed. (Score: 20)

Excellent:

All research objectives in the proposal directly and clearly address one (1) or more risks or medical needs of human space flight as described in section 3.3. The proposal includes a well-considered projection about the potential pathway between the proposed research and an operational countermeasure (i.e., a measure that is implemented on a future space flight). (Score: 25)

1.2 Benefits on Earth

Description: This criterion evaluates whether the proposal demonstrates that the proposed research may contribute to the advancement of 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 (i.e., which specific population, how it will benefit that population, etc.).

Minimum score required = 10

Poor:

The proposal does not address benefits on Earth, or the case for benefits is not clear or logical. (Score: 0)

Average:

The proposal indicates benefits on Earth, and the justification is included but it is general, or lacks precision. (Score: 10)

Good:

One (1) or more of the research objectives has direct Earth benefits. A specific justification is provided and adequate. (Score: 15)

Excellent:

Justification on how the proposed research will directly contribute to the advancement of understanding of similar health issues or to improve health care for Canadians is clear, thorough and persuasive. (Score: 20)

1.3 HQP development

Description: This criterion evaluates how the project will foster the development of HQPs, through recruitment of qualified students/postdoctoral fellows/trainees and provide them with an integrated and meaningful role in the project research team. The proposal must include a clear description of both the role and responsibilities of students/HQPs, and a plan for their development.

Minimum score required = 1

Poor:

The proposal does not include a plan to foster the development of students/postdoctoral fellows/trainees. (Score: 0)

Average:

The proposal contains a development plan. Role of students/postdoctoral fellows/trainee candidates is stated but lacks details. (Score: 1)

Good:

The proposal contains a detailed plan to develop students/postdoctoral fellows/trainees and provides realistic assurance on its feasibility. Their role in the team is well defined. (Score: 3)

Excellent:

The proposal contains a well-thought-out plan to develop students/postdoctoral fellows/trainees. Description on how this plan will be achieved is complete. The proposal demonstrates that HQPs will be assigned leadership roles appropriate for their educational status. (Score: 5)

1.4 Equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI)

Description: The research project must meaningfully engage members of underrepresented groups within the research team as students, postdoctoral fellows, faculty, and partners. Underrepresented groups include, but are not limited to, the 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.

This criterion evaluates whether the proposal describes the specific means that will be taken to foster recruitment and engagement of members from these underrepresented groups within the research team. It also evaluates the different means proposed by the investigators or the research team to conduct outreach activities with underrepresented groups (i.e., member of advisory committees and boards, participation in conferences/colloquiums, workshops, and public dialogues), inside or outside of the research laboratories or universities/institutions. Referencing the university policy is not considered a sufficient demonstration.

Minimum score required = 1

Poor:

The proposal does not describe any measure to facilitate the diversity of the team and does not mention any outreach activities. (Score: 0)

Average:

The proposal contains a diversity inclusion plan or mentions only one (1) outreach activity. The explanation of how this plan or this activity will be achieved lacks details. (Score: 1)

Good:

The proposal contains a diversity inclusion plan that describes specific means to foster recruitment and engagement of members from underrepresented groups or mention at least two (2) outreach activities. The explanation of how this plan or these activities will be achieved is mainly complete and the approach appears feasible. (Score: 3)

Excellent:

The proposal contains a diversity inclusion plan that is fully described, with detailed information on the specific means that will be used to implement the plan (i.e., underrepresented groups that are not included currently in the team and that are targeted) and contains at least three (3) outreach activities that are well detailed and described. (Score: 5)

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, level of effort, 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 and detailed. The application must also show resource (human and funds) allocation to tasks, and level of effort for everyone involved in the project (description and/or percentage), as well as project schedule. Applicants are encouraged to seek co-funding and should clearly indicate co-funding in their budget.

Minimum score required = 10

Poor:

The proposal presents an incomplete or inadequate description of budget, resource allocation, and schedule, and/or inadequate justification of project expenditures. (Score: 0)

Average:

The budget, resource allocation 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: 10)

Good:

Appropriate budget and allocation of resources are presented. Level of effort is included and appears adequate. Schedule planning is feasible and realistic. Justification of project expenditures is appropriate with no major omissions. (Score: 15)

Excellent:

The budget, resource allocation, and schedule are presented in a detailed and clear manner. Justification of resources is clear and comprehensive. The allocation of resources and level of effort, with clear and comprehensive justification are provided. (Score: 20)

2.2 Risk Management

Description: This criterion evaluates the knowledge 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 key risks associated with the project, including, but not limited to financial, technical (i.e., execution of research protocols, REBs approval), and managerial risks (i.e., human resource back-up plans in case of unavailability of a team member)?
  • Are the probability of occurrence and the impact realistic?
  • 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 = 10

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)

Average:

The proposal identifies some, but not all key risks; mitigation strategies are defined. However, the information provided is not sufficient and some details are missing. (Score: 10)

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: 15)

Excellent:

The proposal demonstrates clear understanding of key risks and obstacles/pitfalls accompanied by a thorough and adequate discussion of preventive/remedial measures to ascertain completing the study and achieving quality results. Key risks and their mitigation strategies are well described, and the risk assessment is realistic. (Score: 20)

3. Science dissemination plan

Description: This criterion evaluates the science dissemination plan describing how results from the investigations will be disseminated (i.e., conferences, publications, etc.). Per Section 7.7, applicants are encouraged to use open access publications and archiving in order to facilitate dissemination of results from the investigation.

Minimum score required = 1

Poor:

The proposal does not include a science dissemination plan. (Score: 0)

Average:

The proposal indicates some provisions for science dissemination, but few details are provided about this plan and the proposal does not clearly establish if open access publications will be used, and whether there will be presentation at conferences. (Score: 1)

Good:

The proposal includes a realistic plan to disseminate scientific results to the scientific community, the use of open access publications and participation to conferences are also indicated. (Score: 3)

Excellent:

The proposal includes an explicit, well thought-out, and structured scientific publication plan to disseminate scientific results using open access publications and presentation at conferences, and the plan is likely to raise Canada's profile in space life science considerably. (Score: 5)

APPENDIX 4: Description of Evaluation Criteria for Scientific Merit

In this section

Science quality

Originality

Description: This criterion evaluates whether the proposal addresses a significant gap in health research related to spaceflight.

Minimum score required = 10

Poor:

The hypotheses and research questions have been explored before. (Score: 0-4).

Average:

The hypothesis/research questions contain limited original elements and represent incremental research. (Score: 5-9).

Good:

The hypothesis/research questions are original and represent a new approach. The project is likely to result in significant scientific advances. (Score: 10-15).

Excellent:

The hypotheses/research questions are built on ground research but have not been investigated before in space. The project is likely to result in scientific breakthrough. (Score: 16-20)

Impact on health risk understanding and mitigation

Description: This criterion evaluates the potential of the proposal to decrease one (1) or more risks of human spaceflight if the objectives are met. Potential to increase our understanding of the risks associated with human spaceflights and to propose mitigation strategies will be evaluated. Potential to address specific needs for health and medical support of spaceflight crews. This criterion mainly addresses the expected outcome of the proposed research in the context of risk understanding and mitigation.

Minimum score required = 10

Poor:

The study is unlikely to increase our understanding of the risks of human spaceflight, provide any mitigation strategy, or address needs for medical support of crews. (Score: 0-4).

Average:

The study will only marginally increase our understanding of the risks of human spaceflight but does not provide insights into mitigation strategies or needs for medical support of crews. (Score: 5-9).

Good:

The study is likely to increase our understanding of the risks of human spaceflight and lead to substantial insights into a mitigation strategy but does not address needs for medical support of crews. (Score: 10-15).

Excellent:

The study is very likely to provide a critical increase of our understanding of the risks of human spaceflight and a credible, novel mitigation strategy for one (1) or more specific health risks of human spaceflight. The proposal describes how the research will lead to a countermeasure and address a need for medical support of crews. (Score: 16-20).

Research approach

Validity of the research approach

Description: This criterion evaluates how the research approach builds upon a successful foundation of ground or previous flight studies. It evaluates the completeness of the literature review and its relevance to the study design/research plan.

Minimum score required = 6

Poor:

The research approach is not based upon a successful foundation of ground or previous flight studies. The literature review is missing or inadequate/incomplete. (Score: 0-2).

Average:

The research approach is indirectly related to successful ground or previous flight studies. The literature review is missing or inadequate/incomplete. (Score: 3-4).

Good:

The research approach is based in part upon a successful foundation of ground or previous flight studies. The literature review contains some relevant references, but some important documents are missing. (Score: 5-6).

Excellent:

The research approach is largely based upon a successful foundation of ground or previous flight studies. The literature review is exhaustive and covers all aspects of the proposed study. (Score: 7-10).

Methodology

Description: This criterion evaluates the appropriateness of the proposed research design, research methods and feasibility of the research approach to achieve the objectives.

Minimum score required = 6

Poor:

The proposed methodology is unlikely to support the objectives of the study or is poorly described. The research design lacks important details, and the selected approach is not appropriate. (Score: 0-2).

Average:

The proposed methodology may support the study's objectives. However, there is a significant lack of details, or it is poorly described. There may be better approaches to achieve the objectives. (Score: 3-4).

Good:

The proposed methodology is likely to achieve the objectives and well described. However, some aspects of the methodology are not appropriate or well described. (Score: 5-6).

Excellent:

The proposed methodology is excellent and clearly described, giving a high level of confidence that the objectives will be achieved. (Score: 7-10).

Potential pitfalls

Description: This criterion evaluates how the proposal addresses project risks and whether it includes mitigation strategies.

Minimum score required = 6

Poor:

The proposal fails to identify and address potential pitfalls and does not include a risk mitigation strategy. (Score: 0-2).

Average:

The proposal identifies some of the potential pitfalls of the project but proposes inadequate mitigation strategies. (Score: 3-4).

Good:

The proposal identifies the major potential pitfalls and proposes an adequate mitigation strategy. (Score: 5-6).

Excellent:

The proposal clearly identifies all potential pitfalls and proposes an excellent mitigation strategy. (Score: 7-10).

Research team

Research team expertise and complementarity

Description: This criterion evaluates the availability of all the required expertise in the team to successfully accomplish the proposed work. Specific aspects of the evaluation include qualifications of the applicant(s) and appropriateness of the team to carry out the proposed research, in terms of complementarity of expertise.

Minimum score required = 5

Poor:

The proposed team does not have the required expertise, or the proposal does not address this criterion. (Score: 0-4).

Average:

The team has deficiencies in the completeness of the skills of its members, is lacking important expertise in field of research relevant to the study. The proposal suggests that the team may not be capable of achieving the objectives of the project. (Score: 5-8).

Good:

The proposal demonstrates that the team has most of the expertise required to achieve the objectives of the study, however some minor expertise may be lacking, or complementarity of the expertise is not optimal. (Score: 9-12).

Excellent:

The completeness of the team is very well demonstrated through the complementarities of skills of its members and by the roles/tasks that they are assigned during the study. The expertise of the proposed team demonstrates that it is highly capable of achieving the objectives. (Score: 13-15).

Research team experience and productivity

Description: This criterion evaluates the experience of the team in the proposed area of research as demonstrated by scientific productivity over the past five (5) years and past achievements in the proposed field of research and methodology. Addressing the productivity can be commensurate with the career stage of the team members, and take into account extenuating factors (i.e. pregnancy, illness etc.).

Minimum score required = 5

Poor:

The team's scientific productivity in this field of research is poor and the experience in similar research studies is not sufficient. (Score: 0-4).

Average:

Although the team includes experts in the field of research, some members of the team have limited experience, or the overall productivity of the team is less than average. Experience of the team in the proposed area of research or with the proposed methodology is not clearly demonstrated. (Score: 5-8).

Good:

The team includes established members with good publication productivity in their field and some experience in similar studies. (Score: 9-12).

Excellent:

The team is composed of experts in the proposed field of research, with a high productivity in their field. The team has successfully conducted studies of similar scope. (Score: 13-15).

APPENDIX 5: Description of Feasibility Evaluation Criteria

In this section

All investigations

In-flight Activity Scheduling

Description: Scheduling of in-flight activities is constrained by several factors such as activity duration, in-flight window, activity complexity, window flexibility, and other factors related to ISS flight operations. Examples of activities with severe constraints are provided below.

Feasibility assessment

Low:

Difficult to schedule

Intermediate:

Some constraints

High:

Easy to schedule

Activities that may be difficult to schedule include (but not limited to):

  • Complicated in-flight sessions before the second week in-flight (e.g., requires set-up of multiple pieces of equipment, followed by testing session of more than one (1) hour; sessions that require privatized voice or video).
  • More than five (5) complicated in-flight sessions involving multiple pieces of equipment. (e.g., requires set-up of multiple pieces of equipment, followed by testing of more than 2-3 hours, requires extensive privatized voice or video resources).
  • Crew activity that must be performed daily or more than once a week.
  • Very precise/inflexible timing requirements for sessions.
  • Extended, continuous activities over multiple days that could interfere or be impacted by other operations.

New hardware development/requirement

Description: This criterion evaluates the requirement of new hardware development on the feasibility of the project. The assessment is dependent on how much design and development is required or how extensive COTS equipment will have to be modified.

Feasibility assessment

Low:

Design of new instrument

Intermediate:

Certification of COTS equipment

High:

No new hardware development required

On-orbit facility availability

Description: This criterion evaluates the requirement to launch equipment or facilities that are not already present on-board the ISS. Using existing facilities already on-board the ISS will improve the feasibility, however launching small equipment is possible, particularly if it has already been qualified for the ISS.

Feasibility assessment

Low:

Facility is not available

Intermediate:

Facility can be launched or is available on orbit

High:

No facility required

Conditioned stowage

Description: Cost and complexity of an experiment are affected by the necessity for conditioned stowage (i.e., specific temperature) on the ground, during launch and return, or on-board the ISS either pre- or post-flight. This criterion evaluates whether conditioned stowage is required for the project.

Feasibility assessment

Low:

Required during launch, on-board activities and return

Intermediate:

Only pre- or post-flight

High:

No conditioned stowage required

Late Load

Description: Some experiments will require the loading of samples or equipment in the launch vehicle as close as possible to the launch. This criterion will influence the feasibility of the project based on the time the experiment elements must be integrated into the launch vehicle.

Note: Conditioned stowage falls in the category of Late Load.

Feasibility assessment

Low:

Several hours before launch

Intermediate:

Several days before launch

High:

More than one week before launch

On-orbit operations

Description: Some complex investigations may require multiple equipment, complex procedures, or numerous steps. They may require the participation of a second crew member or the installation of specific hardware. These factors will be used to evaluate the complexity of on-orbit operations.

Feasibility assessment

Low:

Complex on-orbit operations

Intermediate:

Limited on-board activities

High:

Only pre/post-flight activities

Human research

Pre-flight BDC

Description: The feasibility of the investigation can be affected by several requirements for the pre-flight BDC, such as BDC duration, window, or complexity. Activities that may be difficult to implement include: (Values are per subject)

  • Total pre-flight BDC requirements of more than five (5) hours (total applicable for either single session or multiple sessions).
  • BDC sessions requiring more than two (2) hours.
  • More than three pre-flight BDC sessions
  • More than two (2) hours of BDC time required per subject within three (3) months prior to launch.
  • BDC testing requirements within three (3) months of launch.
  • In-flight procedures that require pre-flight training for the crewmember to achieve a high degree of proficiency.
  • BDC hardware that is not easily available on site (NASA JSC, EAC).

Feasibility assessment

Low:

High complexity

Intermediate:

Intermediate complexity

High:

Low complexity

Post-flight BDC

Description: The feasibility of the investigation can be affected by several requirements for the post-flight BDC, such as BDC duration, window, or complexity. Activities that may be difficult to implement include: (values are per subject)

  • Total post-flight BDC requirements of more than five (5) hours (total applicable for either single session or multiple sessions).
  • Activities longer than ten (10) min during the day of return (R+0)
  • Activities longer than one (1) hour during the first day after return (R+1)
  • No activity can be scheduled during the second day after return (R+2) (crew day off)
  • Two (2) or more hours within the first three (3) days of return.
  • More than two (2) hours of total testing between R+3 and R+7.
  • More than three (3) postflight BDC sessions.
  • Strenuous or provocative sessions on R+0 or R+1. Any activity that could be considered strenuous or provocative for a healthy normal subject may not be feasible for crewmembers in this timeframe.
  • Hardware that is not easily available on site (NASA JSC, EAC).

Feasibility assessment

Low:

High complexity

Intermediate:

Intermediate complexity

High:

Low complexity

In-flight crew time per subject

Description: Crew time available on-board the ISS for Canadian investigations is limited. This criterion evaluates how much in-flight crew time is required per subject. The number of hours accounts for all sessions during the subject's mission (e.g., 4 sessions of 2 hours each = 8 hours).

Feasibility assessment

Low:

More than fifteen (15) hours

Intermediate:

Between five (5) and fifteen (15) hours

High:

Less than five (5) hours

Number of subjects

Description: ISS crew size limits the number of available subjects for human research. This criterion evaluates the impact of the number of subjects to be recruited over five (5) years on experiment feasibility.

Feasibility assessment

Low:

higher than 20 subjects

Intermediate:

between 20 and 15 subjects

High:

up to 14 subjects

Transportation to and from orbit per subject

Description: Feasibility of an ISS investigation is affected by the resources required to launch equipment or samples in orbit and to return them to the ground. This criterion evaluates the launch or return requirements for the project.

Feasibility assessment

Low:

Launch and return of more than 2 kg of sample or equipment

Intermediate:

Launch and return of 1 to 2 kg of sample or equipment

High:

Launch and return of less than 1 kg of sample or equipment

Non-human research

Choice of Model organism

Description: The choice of model organism will influence the resources required to perform the investigation, such as the hardware required to maintain the organism, the crew time required for on-board operations, or the requirement for nutrients or waste management.

Feasibility assessment

Low:

Mammalian models (extremely difficult to implement)

Intermediate:

Invertebrate animal or vascular plant

High:

Micro-organism or cell/organoid

Environmental Requirements

Description: Some investigations require specific conditions such as temperature control, levels of humidity or CO2, specific lighting conditions, etc. These requirements may have a high impact on the complexity of operations. Here are a few examples:

  • High complexity: plants requiring habitat to maintain temperature/humidity/lighting
  • Intermediate complexity: bacteria growing in a cartridge with specific temperature/lighting requirements
  • Low complexity: bacteria growing in a cartridge, cabin temperature/random lighting

Feasibility assessment

Low:

High complexity

Intermediate:

Intermediate complexity

High:

Low complexity

Experimental Design

Description: Experimental design includes elements such as the type and frequency of operations, the windows before, during, and after the flight, the requirement for an operator, the need for on-board sample processing, the number of samples or experimental conditions, etc.

Feasibility assessment

Low:

Complex, with numerous treatment factors and/or control treatments.

Intermediate:

Limited number of conditions or manipulations

High:

Simple design and low crew involvement

Date modified: