Big science operating costs resurface after two years in policy limbo

Group to report to Industry Canada

The increasingly urgent challenge of providing sufficient and stable operating costs to Canada's major science facilities is slowly resurfacing, two years after it fell off the government radar. Canada's three granting agencies, the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI) and the National Research Council (NRC) are collaborating on a position paper outlining the various problems inherent in the current funding environment.

The working group is aiming to outline the magnitude of the problems and more finely define the issues at stake. It plans to present its findings to Industry Canada early in 2008.

"The solutions are not clear and while they are beyond the scope of the working group, we may include examples of issues and how they might be addressed," says Isabelle Blain, VP research grants and scholarships at the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. "Our work will be part of a think piece for Industry Canada that they can work with."

The working group builds on the work of national science advisor (NSA) Dr Arthur Carty, who led an effort that resulted in a framework for evaluating, funding and providing oversight for major science investments (R$, February 22/05). That framework apparently has not been acted upon in a comprehensive way until now.

"The first step was Dr Carty and his work. He prepared a comprehensive and wonderful document that framed the issue and we're building on that," says Blain. "I'm not sure it (the operating costs issue) went cold but it went behind the scenes. There is concern in Canada that there's a risk that the major investments we have made in these kinds of facilities are at risk of not being used to their optimum due to a lack of operating funding. That would be a shame."

"We're developing a position paper to start the conversation," says another official close to the file. "The (big science) community is aware that we are trying to pull something together that is neutral and objective. We don't want to be seen as lobbying for a particular point of view. The responsibilities fall to many different players so we need partnerships of a fairly significant order. We need a positive discussion."

angling for support

For the Canadian Light Source (CLS), movement on the issue of big science operating costs can't come soon enough. With up to 10 different sources for operating funding all working on different timelines, the task of coordinating funding and ensuring that lapses do not occur requires considerable human resources that could be utilized elsewhere. Executive director Dr Bill Thomlinson says fundraising occupies nearly all of his time that could be more fruitfully spent on science and management issues.

On his most recent trip to Ottawa in late November, Thomlinson outlined the challenges the CLS faces as it deals with the financial pressures of bringing more beamlines on stream and boosting industrial participation. Current CLS funding expires in less than two years, necessitating trips to the various agencies and departments that support its operation.

"I've made many of these types of trips. This is what we have to do," says Thomlinson. "The Government of Canada has to step forward and keep the facility doing what it does best which is fundamental and applied science across all sectors. We need to remain internationally competitive … We need the political support the CLS has received in the past. Do it again."

"Proponents do not know how to engage government decision makers because there is no clear mechanism in place for them to do so. The processes of proposal evaluation, assembling of funds, and governance therefore seem to be reinvented with each case. The results can lead to cost overruns, inadequate commitments for ongoing operation, confusion of mission, and lack of accountability. Canada can do better."

— Framework Discussion Paper, Office of the National Science Advisor

Since arriving at the CLS in 2002, Thomlinson has made operating funding a key preoccupation although he now appears willing to modify his position (R$, May 6/03). Instead of advocating for consolidation of funding sources, Thomlinson says the immediate objective is funding stability. That means working with current funding sources but within a framework that provides coherency and stability if the science passes the tests of excellence and relevance.

"There's a groundswell of sincere interest in solving the problem … at the granting councils, certainly at the National Research Council, the provinces, with researchers all across the country and all of the universities that are involved."

Thomlinson says the release of the S&T Strategy and the formation of the Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) are positive developments that could help propel the issue of big science operating costs forward. He adds that the vision, mission and value statements of the CLS mirror the new strategy and actually pre-date it.

"The S&T Strategy makes a lot of sense. If they support it, it's fundamental," says Thomlinson. "We had hoped that the Strategy would have gone a bit beyond where it went and addressed this issue explicitly instead of implicitly. It didn't, so it basically told us that the current way (multiplicity of funding sources) is the only way so make it work. I have no problem with that."

Under the 2005 NSA-proposed framework, a two-tiered process for evaluating and supporting major science facilities was presented. The first stage was a major science investment panel composed of representatives from the granting agencies, NRC and CFI, as well as four DMs from science-based departments and two international experts. Its recommendations would be forwarded to an oversight and monitoring committee housed within a lead department (presumably Industry Canada) to oversee a facility from the beginning through to decommissioning.

Since that recommendation was never adopted, facilities must contend with the status quo, although Thomlinson says some existing models are preferable to the multiple funding model the CLS now uses.

"The NRC model is a good model for TRIUMF. Would it be a good model for CLS? I wouldn't refuse any model that gives us stability, allows us to go forward and pursue excellent science," he says.

Another major issue inextricably connected to the operating support issue is the attraction and retention of worldclass talent.

Failure to address the stability of operating costs could jeopardize the success many facilities have achieved in attracting top scientists. If there is uncertainly surrounding the long-term funding stability, researchers are free to move to facilities that offer more security.

"We now attract scientists but you need spikes and these big facilities are the spikes," says the official. "We may be at a point in our science enterprise development after making up for a huge gap and moving on to something bigger. Where does the Nobel Prize winning science take place? It's possible for Canada once again, but the operating infrastructure has to be dealt with to fulfill the promise."

R$