Canada needs new national science academy to coordinate counter-terrorism research with United States: Normand

Canada’s research community needs a national focus, better coordination and more resources before it can work more closely with the United States on counter-terrorism, say senior science officials from this country who met with their counterparts in Washington Nov. 19. The meeting with Dr. John Marburger, the new science advisor to President George W. Bush, and other key US representatives gave public science organizations from both countries an opportunity to discuss options for joint R&D projects and policies that beef up border security.

Dr Gilbert Normand, secretary of state for Science, Research and Development, organized the meeting. He stressed that Canada has technologies and expertise that can assist the US, particularly in the areas of chemical/biological protection, network/database security and social sciences and humanities. What’s lacking, he asserts, is our ability to provide a national focal point for security and S&T.

In the United States, this responsibility rests with the US National Academies, whose president, Dr. Bruce Alberts, was among those at the meeting. Normand said the Americans were concerned that an equivalent organization doesn’t exist in Canada. “We’ve been working for more than a year now to create one in Canada,” he notes, referring to a proposal tabled this summer by a working group including the Royal Society of Canada for a Canadian Academies of Science (R$, July 16/01). “We’re one of only two among the G8 countries without a national academy of sciences. And that’s a problem, particularly with this type of (crisis) because we can’t have very good coordination for all these sectors of science.”

Normand is among those championing the idea of a Canadian Academies. He’s also trying to drum up support for the appointment of a scientific advisor to the Prime Minister, and a Minister of Science. Having those people in place, he says, would make it easier for Canada to work with the US on areas of common concern like bioterrorism.

In the US, Marburger is responsible for coordinating national security activities including terrorism across various scientific agencies. Meanwhile, the National Academies, which represent science, engineering and medicine, plan to release a broad-based research strategy next September to help its government win the war on terrorism. The Academies want to identify specific counter terrorism issues as they apply to the social, physical and biological sciences, and then map out research priorities for the next four-to-seven years.

In Canada, there is no single agency that could take on this task. As such, science administrators say it’s difficult to pull together the country’s science capacity to deal with national security and counter-terrorism.

“In this country, (the science capacity) is fairly dispersed,” explains Dr. John Leggat, CEO of Defence R&D Canada. “There’s no university department of national security. There’s really no government department either that deals exclusively with national security. So the big policy issues are: where is the leadership going to come from, how is this going to be brought together, and what are the best mechanisms for bringing the capacity within a country to bear on the some the specific issues we need to address?”

Dr. Howard Alper, president of the Royal Society of Canada and VP research at the Univ of Ottawa, says one outcome he’s anticipating as a result of the Nov. 19 meeting is better linkages between the National Academies and his Society in the area of research and security. He would also like to see joint research in other areas, including life sciences, information technology and material sciences. But for widespread collaboration to occur, he says Canada has to deal with what he describes as a “governance gap” in S&T.

“Right now Canada does not have the capabilities to embark on major collaboration internationally … We need to be empowered fiscally with the powers to enable that to happen. The (Canadian Academies) can act as a clearing house and deal with matters that need to be addressed,” says Alper, a vocal proponent of the Canadian Academies.

Another participant at the meeting, Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) president Dr. Alan Bernstein, agrees that Canada lacks the formal mechanisms needed to work more closely with the US on science and security. “I think we’re going to have to create them,” he says. He adds that agencies such CIHR will also have to look at how these new research projects would be financed. “Any new issue requires us to prioritize … If we don’t have the resources, either we can’t do it or we can’t do it until we have more funding from partners or the federal government. I’m optimistic that our government will recognize the importance of CIHR to the health care system, to the new economy and now to issues like bio-terrorism.”

Leggat agrees that some existing programs within his agency may have to be re-focussed to deal with security concerns. On a broader level, though, he says Canada may have to look at changing how science is done in this country, specifically within the federal government where the current structure often precludes the science-based departments from working cooperatively on issues like national security and counter-terrorism. Establishing a Federal Innovation Network of Excellence focussing on national security is one idea being considered (see page 8).

“One of the things (the Americans) wanted to hear more of from us was how we are pulling things together in Canada on the S&T front,” says Leggat. “We’re presently looking at dates whereby we can talk to them about the process that we use here in Canada and perhaps some of the results.”

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

Normand will have another chance to discuss cross-border research activities with Marburger when the two men travel this weekend (Dec. 1-2) to Oxford England for the biannual meeting of the Carnegie Group of G8 Science Ministers. Bioterrorism and S&T are on the agenda. Normand has also asked each of the Canadian participants at the Washington meeting to report back on what their organizations can contribute in terms of research and national security.

An immediate concern for the US is looking at how security can be beefed up at the Canada-US border, without slowing down trade.

“When we were talking to Dr. Marburger, he said we really needed to do things between the two countries such as tracking people internal to the country and setting up cross border groups to deal with specific issues related to science and technology at the border,” says Leggat, who’s returning to Washington Dec. 17 for a follow-up meeting with Marburger.

To help respond to the border concern, Normand hopes to organize an event next spring at which Canadian companies can showcase new technologies to both the American and Canadian governments. The US Department of Defence has already issued a request for proposals for 38 different technologies associated with domestic security, in areas such as voice print recognition, tracking/locating remote sensors, locating/identifying faces in visual images, physical security, early warning devices and chemical/biological/radiological/nuclear countermeasures. The deadline for applications is Dec. 23.

R$