Dean of Graduate Studies > Future Students > Academic Programs > Science > Bioinformatics

Bioinformatics

The CIHR/MSFHR Bioinformatics Training Program is a scholarship program for students who wish to undertake a MSc or PhD in Bioinformatics at either SFU or UBC.

Degrees available:

  • MSc
  • PhD

Campus: Burnaby

Please consult the departmental website for admission requirements.

Applications

In order to be accepted into the program, you must also be accepted into an affiliated graduate studies program at one of our two affiliated universities: University of British Columbia or Simon Fraser University. Acceptance by a graduate studies program can happen before or after your acceptance by the Program. We prefer to receive applications directly to the Program before you apply to a graduate studies program.

Application information can be found here.

If you have admission-related questions, please email bioinformaticsprogram@bcgsc.ca.

Fees

Note: International students may pay the same graduate fees as domestic students, depending on the program chosen. Please consult the program's website for further clarification.

Connections

 

News on the Graduate Studies Blog

Search the Graduate Studies website

Print

Defences and Events

  • Brian Uher-Koch, MSc Thesis Defence, Biological Sciences
    2:00 PM - 4:00 PM
    May 21, 2013
    Supervisor Dr. Ronald Ydenberg Thesis Title: Latitudinal and seasonal variation in non-breeding survival of surf and white-winged scoters
  • Joshua Newman, PhD Thesis Defence, Political Science
    5:00 PM - 8:00 PM
    May 22, 2013
    Location: SFU Harbour Centre, The Repap Policy Room (1425) Title: The Governance of Public-Private Partnerships: Success and Failure in the Transportation Sector Abstract Since the economic crises of the 1970s, the political climate in many developed countries has been reoriented from a focus on the public provision of goods and services to an emphasis on curbing government spending, reducing taxes, and limiting bureaucracy. As a consequence, alternative service delivery arrangements, in which non-government entities and private sector corporations are involved in public service delivery, have become increasingly popular in the last 30 years. The term “governance” is now commonly used to signify this shift away from a traditional hierarchical mode of government to a more horizontal environment of policy formulation and implementation. For many supporters of alternative service delivery, increased freedom for the private sector is regarded as the key to successful governance. Public-private partnerships (P3s) are a family of alternative service delivery mechanisms that allow the private sector to finance, own, and deliver goods and services to the public through long-term contractual arrangements with governments and other public sector agencies. P3s fit comfortably into the logic of alternative service delivery, which implies that by removing some – but not all – elements of the public sector and replacing them with some – but not all – aspects of the private sector, a balance between public sector accountability and private sector efficiency can be struck. However, this presents an inherent conflict, as the public sector is viewed simultaneously as the problem and as the solution to improving public service delivery. This inherent conflict in governance arrangements can sometimes lead to governance failure, a phenomenon that is not sufficiently understood. First, I show that governance failure can have negative consequences for the state and society. Then, I examine two case studies in P3 delivery of transportation infrastructure, the Canada Line in Vancouver, Canada and the Sydney Airport Link in Sydney, Australia, to determine how governance failure occurs and how it can be avoided. These two cases have similar technical parameters and political motivations, but in the Canadian case, where the public sector demonstrated policy leadership through the fostering of policy networks, through bounded-rational policy learning, and through a collaborative institutional approach to project implementation, successful governance was achieved. By contrast, the Australian case, in which the government was not substantially engaged in the partnership, resulted in governance failure. From an analysis of these two cases I conclude that public sector policy leadership is essential to the prevention of governance failure.
  • Adhi Susilo PhD Education Thesis Examination
    10:00 AM - 1:00 PM
    May 30, 2013
    No Description

    • Download .ics