Defence/Security Research

I have some news today about a new HESA initiative to convene a National Defence Research Roundtable. More details at the end of the blog.

But first, a bit of context on the defence and security research landscape.

In recent months, the Government of Canada has committed the country to meeting the NATO Defence Spending Pledge. This pledge is for all members to spend 5% of their respective GDP on core defence requirements and broader defence- and security-related spending by 2035. Of this, 1.5% is meant to protect critical infrastructure, defend networks, ensure civil preparedness and resilience, support innovation, and strengthen the defence industrial base, and the remaining 3.5% is for core defence, which includes military-related research and development. The question for the higher education sector is: how might our institutions play a role in this research?

Broadly speaking, there are five ways that governments structure their investments in defence research.

First, they do it themselves. France runs most of its research through government facilities, as does Sweden. Canada, too, at the moment: Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC) – which operates seven research centres across the country – develops and delivers technical solutions and advice to the Canadian Armed Forces, and is the main way that our government currently spends in this area.

Second, they create permanent research facilities at individual universities. You may be familiar with various American University-Affiliated Research Centres, all at R1 universities, each with specific applied missions (e.g. UC Santa Barbara looks for technological innovations in the fields of synthetic biology, biologically-enabled materials, and cognitive neuroscience; Carnegie Mellon focuses on robotics, etc). The Department of Defense (DoD) also has a basic research directorate that subsidizes a large number of dedicated university-based research units, the most famous of which is the Jet Propulsion Laboratory at CalTech. 

In the UK, the biggest beneficiary of this kind of arrangement has been the University of Plymouth, which hosts both the Royal Navy Dreadnought Programme and the Cyber-SHIP lab, the latter of which is the world’s first maritime cyber-physical testlab for shipping and offshore systems. France’s Institut Polytechnique does a lot of work on dual-use technologies and hosts, among other government initiatives, a research and defence institute on Military Artificial Intelligence. In Australia, the University of Tasmania hosts the Underwater Collision Research Facility, a unit sponsored by Government Defence Science and Technology Group (DSTG) to improve submarine performance and autonomous underwater vessel design for Australia and AUKUS partners.

The third type of arrangement is to have universities host University-Industry Centres.  Australia has a number of such centres, notably the Defence Research Institute (DRI) at the University of New South Wales, which facilitates research partnerships between academics, government, and industry in technology, health, business, and humanities. One component of the DRI is the Centre for Advanced Defence Research and Enterprise, which supports defence-industry-academic driven research leading to the development of innovative and critical technologies that facilitate military operations in chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) environments. Canada also has one of these: the Centre for Applied Research in Defense and Dual-Use Technologies at the University of Alberta. 

A fourth set of arrangements is through Standing, Multi-Institutional Research Networks.  The UK has several of these, such as the University Defence Research Collaboration in Signal Processing and the Defence Data Research Centre. The research network model is also the dominant form of funding in Australia. At the macro level, Australia distributes funds for priority research areas through the Australian Defence Science and Universities Network (ADSUN), while the DSTG distributes money through state-level defence/innovation networks. Research is conducted on a wide range of topics, including space tech, underseas surveillance, AI applications for pilots, and 3D printing for aircraft.

The fifth method of structuring research is through Competitive Bidding for Single Projects.  This type of funding stream is extremely important in the United States, but rare outside it. The DoD puts out what are known as “Broad Agency Announcements” (BAAs) which effectively act as calls for proposals for various subjects. These projects can cover a wide variety of projects, including basic research, but the lion’s share of money from BAAs are projects involving advanced component development and prototypes and operational systems development. In Canada, the Department of National Defense (DND) does something similar, but on a comparatively microscopic scale. DND also runs programs like the Defence Research Initiative, which provides top-up funds to projects in areas of interest to the Canadian Armed Forces via the SSHRC Insight Grant program.

If you have any familiarity with the Canadian research scene, you’ll note that this list is kind of upside-down compared to our usual funding arrangements. When the military needs research done, for the most part, they will a) have very specific ideas about what they want, b) will prioritize speed, and as a result of these two things, c) will prefer to work with trusted, responsive partners. There will always be a small role for inquiry-driven research that can stimulate breakthrough thinking, but that’s about it; for the most part defence and security work is mostly about permanent, established institutes or networks. The exact mix of funding arrangements is going to differ a little bit from one field or another – what works in quantum computing or artificial intelligence is unlikely to be the right solution for research on operations in biochemical warfare environments. But in general, it needs to be much more structured and permanent than we are used to: 7-year Canada First Research Excellence Fund deals are too short, let alone the annual competitions that govern tri-council awards.

Judging by last week’s budget and the absolutely titanic levels of vagueness in the language the government used in the sections around defence research, the government doesn’t quite know how to deal with all this either. And yet, time is of the essence: these are problems that need to be solved quickly.

So, here comes the interesting bit. Last week, the University Vice-Presidents Network met in Victoria, in part to talk about how Canadian universities can lean into national projects including national defence. The consensus was that while national organizations are doing their thing and working with the government with respect to the relationship between defence research funders and universities, there is also room to bring together a broader cross-section of expertise to think together about our contributions to national defence and security research. 

In line with that thinking, HESA is proposing to host a one-day National Defence Research Roundtable on December 15 in Ottawa (yes, I know it’s very soon – but the window for this stuff is short). It would be open, primarily, to all university Vice-Presidents and Deans. We would also invite representatives from the Department of National Defence (DND), Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED), and other research-related government departments and agencies to listen and engage. There would be sessions both on thematic areas (e.g. Quantum Computing, AI) and on research funding mechanisms (e.g. the stuff I talked about in the first half of this blog). There would be a modest charge to participants to cover expenses.

The point of the roundtable is not to develop or lobby for any specific proposals — individual institutions and national organizations are already hard at work on that. Rather, this is a chance for universities to show the country that they can lean in and work together, selflessly, to get the best results for Canada rather than individual institutions. It is an opportunity to collaboratively develop practical, sector-wide advice on how to spend defence research money in the most effective, efficient, and innovative manner possible. In a word, it is a chance to come together on a matter of national importance with all the energy, enthusiasm, and seriousness this moment of national urgency deserves.

If you’re interested in joining us, click here and let us know. If we get sufficient interest today and tomorrow, we’ll green light this thing on Friday. Stay tuned.