Canadian role in international S&T faces many challenges as expert panelcompletes highly anticipated report

Canada's role in international science and technology is about to gain a much higher profile after languishing on the fringes of public policy and suffering debilitating budget cuts, with the release of an eagerly awaited report this September. A draft report with three recommendations from an expert panel of the Advisory Council on Science and Technology (ACST) is to be debated in a series of closed workshops beginning this week (see box). But whether the report can properly address or even overcome the formidable obstacles facing Canada's interaction with the wider S&T community remains a point of considerable debate.

Some contend that the interdisciplinary nature of much international S&T clashes with the decentralized nature of the activity within the federal government. Others suspect that current activity aimed at increasing interaction with the international community has been forced into limbo until the release of the report, by attaching too much importance on its ability to affect change.

The expert panel, chaired by Dr René Simard, has drafted recommendations pertaining to three broad areas: mechanisms for Canadian researchers to participate in international science opportunities; the role of government in overcoming barriers Canadian firms face gaining access to international technology; and, ways to create linkages between Canadian international policies and its agenda in trade and investment. The hope is that the report will lead to a strategic framework in which Canada's participation in the international S&T arena will be significantly enhanced.

Following the closed workshops with invited stakeholders, comments will be incorporated into the report for presentation to the ACST in Vancouver June 23. The final document will review the recommendations and will be presented to the Cabinet Council on Economic Union before its public release.

"The draft report can still change," says Andreé Bichon, head of the expert panel secretariat. "There were three question so there are three recommendations, although there may be pressure to add a fourth."

While the expert panel has been working on its report, any activity aimed at Canada's participation in international S&T programs and organizations has seemingly ground to a halt. A case in point is the attempt to reinstate Canada's membership in the Austrian-based International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA). More than 18 months after IIASA made a major overture to Canada for re-instatement, little has been done to facilitate the process despite the relatively modest cost of participation (R$, December 2/98).

"There are unnecessarily high expectations for the panel (but) it won't resolve all outstanding issues," says a government official. "There's no reason to wait for the panel but it's being used as an excuse for lack of action. The process of the report's work should push the agenda and not the report itself."

Governance will also be a tough nut to crack for the panel, given the entrenched attitudes of those in government towards collaboration and power sharing. Considerable dissension emerged when the S&T Review of the mid 1990s addressed the idea of centralized S&T decision-making, and as a result responsibility for international S&T remains fragmented. The challenge, contend those close to the process, is finding an effective decision-making mechanism outside government.

But another government official says the interdisciplinary nature of much international S&T makes finding an acceptable champion and mechanism problematic. "A centralized approach will be met with strong resistance in all departments," he says. "We need to think this through carefully or it will run into the wall of ministerial accountability of departmental mandates."

IIASA membership

remains elusive

The absence of a coordinated strategy is hindering Canada's place at the table in one of the more significant organizations conducting international S&T. IIASA has been trying to woo Canada back into the fold and has been making progress gathering support for readmission. Univ of British Columbia president Dr Martha Piper has agreed to make the university the home of Canada's membership node and has solicited the support of the ministers of Industry, Environment and Natural Resources Canada. Piper is also a member of the ACST.

"We now have a solid partner in UBC but it cannot function without a financial contribution. It needs national funding," says Dr Sten Nilsson, a counselor to IIASA's director and leader of its forest resources project.

Adding to the challenge of securing Canadian membership is the absence of a Canadian science academy, the mechanism through which most IIASA members participate.

With an annual budget of US$12 million, IIASA operates research programs in several areas (see box) and counts most European nations and the US as members. But the organization is facing its own problems, not the least of which is a review of the US node to determine whether to maintain membership. A consultant has examined the value of US membership and has delivered a draft report to the National Science Foundation. But the report has been sent back for revisions and its contents remain confidential.

R$