ONSA set to deliver on key mandates, proposes competitive fund for federal labs

The Office of the National Science Advisor (ONSA) has nearly completed work on three of its key mandates and is aggressively promoting a new fund for federal laboratories modelled on the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI). In the 18 months since its inception, the Office is developing policy advice on several fronts and has already achieved success with its central role in reviving the Canadian Academies of Science and Canada’s leadership role in the International Polar Year.

Despite the constraints of limited resources and a small staff of largely seconded personnel, the ONSA has been working flat out on myriad issues relating to S&T, federal science and Canada’s role in the larger international sphere. The all-important commercialization file is being handled largely within Industry Canada.

The ONSA is putting the final touches on a framework for major science projects, an assessment of Canadian nano-technology activities and infrastructure and prime minister Paul Martin’s so-called 5% challenge — a commitment to devote 5% of R&D expenditures to the developing world.

Much of the ONSA’s progress and near-term achievements, however, are not well known within the broader S&T community. With an annual budget of just over $1 million, the Office has been unable to hire communications staff and its web site is little more than an empty shell. Add to that the considerable time Carty and his staff have spent travelling internationally, and it’s little wonder that many are wondering if the Office is having any tangible impact on improving Canadian S&T, commercialization and overall competitiveness.

“We’ve done more than you could ever have imagined in terms of what we’ve accomplished,” says national science advisor Dr Arthur Carty. “Some of (our mandates) are rapidly coming to a conclusion … and in all three of those cases we’ve made major progress. Then there’s reinvigorating federal science. We were just looking at this (last week) at the deputy minister’s committee, which I chair. A lot has happened over the past year.”

Carty justifies the time he and his staff have spent outside of Canada, pointing to the strengthening of S&T linkages with India and to a lesser extent China and Japan. Canada, for instance, is about to sign a formal S&T agreement with India, one of a handful of such agreements Canada has entered into. The ONSA also played a major role in procuring $20 million in funding for collaborative, bilateral R&D programs announced earlier this year by International Trade Canada. That program targets specific areas of science and countries such as China, Brazil, India and Israel (R$, July 1/05).

Strengthening S&T relations with China was initially on the ONSA’s agenda, but Carty says he disengaged from that file earlier this year when Industry minister David Emerson expressed a particular interest.

“The missions to India have been a special focus of Canada this year. You’ve got to build the relationships,” says Carty, who visited India three times in 2005. “We’ve done a good job there but it takes time.”

REINVIGORATING FEDERAL SCIENCE

It’s on the home front that Carty and his team are having considerable, if largely unrecognized, impact. Federal S&T has long been an area of concern, given the lack of attention it received during the 1997-2004 period of reinvestment in Canadian science and research. The ONSA was instrumental in developing a vision for federal science that set the stage for a Federal S&T Forum last January (see box). At that event, it was agreed that science-based departments and agencies (SBDAs) should move from a policy of collaboration to one of integration. A renewed commitment to strengthening federal S&T led to the decision to produce an extensive inventory of science activity across all departments and agencies, in conjunction with the S&T Integration Board.

“This was the first time we’ve ever had such a document,” says Carty. “We have a complete description of government science and it is all described in three pages per department, plus appendices. It’s really the sum total of all the government science, but also the priorities, the challenges and the issues they face.”

In a parallel development, Environment Canada DM Samy Watson organized a 10-day workshop in September through the DM’s Policy Committee on Sustainability the Environment, within the Privy Council Office (PCO). Attended by federal scientists, its objective was to identify a set of national challenges for federal S&T in the coming years and develop an integrated approach to tackling them. Carty says his proposal for a CFI-like fund picks up on findings by a recent Treasury Board Laboratory Assets Review and addresses many of the issues raised in the workshop.

“It’s meant to be a program that will be competitive, peer-reviewed, recognize federal science priorities and have partnering as a key component,” he says. “(Departments and agencies) would have to show that they are willing to put some of their own money up to access the fund. It’s replacing infrastructure but on a competitive basis (and) it will encourage partnerships between departments and inside-outside government.”

A target amount has not been established for the proposed fund, but Carty says the scope of the problem of antiquated infrastructure is “enormous” and he hopes it can be launched as soon as possible.

“Federal infrastructure is rusted out but much of it wouldn’t be replaced anyhow. It’s irrelevant,” he says. “It could be implemented fairly quickly if there’s a willingness to do so.”

BIG SCIENCE

For so-called big science projects, a recent workshop strongly endorsed the second draft of an ONSA-developed framework and a memorandum to Cabinet is being readied for this fall. The framework for the evaluation, funding and administration of major science facilities covers existing and future facilities. It has undergone major evolution and now includes increased emphasis on distributed science facilities such as high-performance computing.

Work is also nearly completed on a national nanotechnology strategy that the ONSA is developing in conjunction with the Advisory Council for Science and Technology. The ONSA is responsible for assessing national research strengths in nanotech and it found that Canada is doing relatively well. Carty says investment in nanotech research infrastructure and projects is approximately $190 million this year, including 54 Canada Research Chairs devoted to the field.

Also ready to move forward is a framework for the PM’s 5% challenge. Carty says that for Canada to meet the challenge of devoting 5% of federal R&D towards projects targeting the developing world, the government would have to nearly double its current spending from approximately $170 million to $320 million. That’s based on total federal R&D spending of $5.8 billion and would be even higher if it’s based on S&T spending of about $9 billion.

“We’ve got those options in there. We’ll pick one of the options as the target,” he says. “We could start off at 5% of R&D and that would give us the challenge of raising the bar by about $150 million over a certain period of time. If it’s S&T, we would need to get another $150 million.”

SEEKING NEW OFFICE SPACE AND ADDITIONAL STAFF

While the ONSA seems to be effective at generating policy and programmatic advice, it remains to be seen whether that advice will be used by government and incorporated into new legislation. Carty maintains that the the size of his office and its operating budget constrain him from doing more to fulfill his various mandates — a situation compounded by recent political events and the Liberal government’s minority status. A request before the last federal Budget to increase funding for the ONSA was not successful.

“I hope that we will get permission to have a significant increase in staff this year. And we’re out of space. All offices are occupied,” he says. “We have ministers, ambassadors and international groups coming through here and it’s not really a showcase for Canadian science and technology ... There is a lot we can do in that regard.”

Uncertainty also surrounds the mandate and authority of the national science advisor. With no formal mechanism for putting proposals before Cabinet, Carty must move proposals through Industry minister Emerson, who must then work to bring his Cabinet colleagues on side (R$, January 24/05).

Also contentious is the decision to place the ONSA within the PCO rather than the Prime Minister’s Office, since Carty is mandated to provide the PM with advice.

“I’m closer to the machinery of government in PCO but in reality there are pluses and minuses. It might be nice to be independent somewhere else,” he says, adding that it may be more appropriate to broach the subject during a transition period such as an election. “I’m working within the system but clearly it would be be easier if there was a minister of science ... I think there are simpler ways of trying to get technology policy working, but we’re functioning within the system as it is.”

R$