ACST hires group to evaluate performance as concerns raised over speed of government's reaction to recommendations

The Advisory Committee on Science and Technology (ACST) has engaged Sussex Circle Inc to conduct a thorough evaluation of the group's performance since it was established in 1996 following the federal government's exhaustive consultation process for a national science and technology (S&T) strategy. While officials say that the review is standard procedure for a young advisory body like the ACST, many in the S&T community contend that the internal review was commissioned - at least in part - to determine why the three reports issued to date have not resulted in any major policy changes or new program initiatives.

Sussex Circle was hired last November to evaluate the effectiveness and impact of the ASCT and examine internal processes and interaction. Its report should be submitted to the ACST chair - Industry minister Brian Tobin - some time this month, although its findings won't be publicly released.

To date, the ACST has issued reports on the commercialization of university research, skills and Canada's role in international S&T. While they have generally been well received by government and the relevant stakeholder communities, the vast majority of the recommendations have yet to result in publicly announced measures. Even some ACST members acknowledge that government response to the recommendations of the expert panel reports has been slow, and fear that the goodwill amongst the eminent individuals who volunteer their time may sour if it appears as though their work is not appreciated.

QUESTION OF EXPECTATIONS

A government official says the contention that Sussex Circle was brought in because ACST recommendations are not being implemented is simply not true, pointing to the $100-million fund for international cooperation announced for the Canada Foundation for Innovation last fall. He says that the debate over the ACST's effectiveness hinges on how fast policy and programmatic recommendations should take to percolate up into government action.

"There's nothing sinister or untoward about this. We're using an outside group to get good clean comments," says the official. "There is some frustration but the central question is one of expectation. All panels should have a response to their recommendations, but the question is, in what timeframe?"

ACST member Dr Jacquelyn Thayer-Scott chaired the expert panel on skills, which was submitted to the ACST one and a half years ago. Thayer-Scott says she is worried by the long period of time that's elapsed since the panel completed its work, but she's also encouraged by recent statements on skills and the creation of three round tables on learning, labour market issues and the enterprise aspects of skills. She acknowledges that the recommendations of her panel, which combined the issues of skills and enterprise, were complex and did not lend themselves to simple answers or an easy fix. That said, she's concerned that the impression of government inaction sends out the wrong message to stakeholder communities.

"There is an expectation that the government will react to these things (expert panel reports) because a lot of volunteer effort went into them," says Thayer-Scott, president of the University College of Cape Breton. "But there's also an understanding that it takes the government time. No reaction doesn't mean that the reports are being ignored...The government is also in the process of developing a public policy paper on innovation, and materials from the skills and commercialization of university research panels are very much a part of that."

MUST MOVE QUICKLY

Dr Pierre Fortier, ACST member and chair of the expert panel on the commercialization of university research, says the normal reaction of his panel is to want a prompt response to recommendations. But he says the pace of change globally should also spur the government to act.

"Other countries are moving rapidly and if Canada is to improve its productivity, the commercialization of university research is one way to do it," says Fortier, senior advisor to the chairman of Innovitech Inc, a former Cabinet minister in the government of Robert Bourassa and former president/COO of Société financière des Caisses Desjardins Inc. "Government should assist the universities to finance their ILOs (industry liaison offices). Commercialization should be the next step...I'm convinced that we (the expert panel members) have done good work and it's up to the government to follow through."

Both Thayer-Scott and Fortier assert that the ACST has made considerable progress on key S&T issues since its formation, and that many of its recommendations are currently working their way through the system for eventual implementation. The recommendations stemming from the reports on skills and commercialization are both under active development and will likely produce results in the near term.

ACST UNDER RESOURCED

But Thayer-Scott says the larger question of the effectiveness of the ACST must also address the resources placed at the group's disposal, which she contends are currently inadequate.

"There are serious questions about resourcing and what happens afterwards. The ACST has a very small support staff and although they are of very high quality there are not enough of them. We have good access to Cabinet but we also have to work through the systems of government," she says. "We don't develop reports that sit on shelves. We like to move quickly. But the ACST was created during Program Review so the resources weren't there and it still hasn't been fixed. The time has come to fix them."

The ACST is one of two major advisory groups created in the wake of the federal S&T strategy that feed into the federal S&T policy-making apparatus. Designed to provide advice to the prime minister through the Cabinet Committee for Economic Union, its membership is composed of eminent Canadians from university and industry.

Its counterpart, the Council of Science and Technology Advisors (CSTA), is also composed of external advisors. But its objective is to help improve federal S&T management by examining issues cutting across federal departments and pointing to opportunities for joint action. Each CSTA member represents a specific government department or agency and works on its behalf.

R$