Canadian Science Policy Conference raises key issues surrounding need to enhance Canadian S&T decision making

Weakness in science policy threatens Canada's ability to compete and prosper in a global knowledge-based economy and is undermining the impact of academic- and government-based research, delegates heard at a major conference in Toronto last month. Despite the relative prosperity enjoyed by Canadians and a well-funded university research system, lack of policy and program coherence has resulted in a fragmented innovation system with little potential for developing companies whose products and processes that can succeed against fierce global competition.

The Canadian Science Policy Conference (CSPC) grew out of a growing concern that researchers lacked input into the policy making process, prompting post-doctoral researcher Dr Mehrdad Hariri to organize an event that laid the foundations for building bridges between the two communities and examining options for a mechanism to develop more robust science policy. The result was more than 400 delegates who assembled to hear an array of high-profile speakers delve into the issues surrounding science policy and its impact on the various players in the innovation system.

Not surprisingly, criticism of existing policies, programs and structures dominated discussion. But there were those who put forward concrete suggestions for addressing the gaps and quality of science advice.

From adding wealth creation as a focus for S&T policy to establishing a Parliamentary office of S&T similar in function to that of the Office of the Auditor General, recommendations provided fertile ground for discussion and follow-on.

Chief among the advocates for new mechanisms was Preston Manning, former leader of the Reform and Canadian Alliance parties and founder/president of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy. Manning lamented the absence of an S&T champion within government and said Canada could benefit from having more science-trained or science-aware parliamentarians and a Parliamentary office for S&T.

"We had a national science advisor but he was tied to the executive (Privy Council Office). The office languished under (prime minister Paul) Martin and was replaced by STIC (Science, Technology and Innovation Council) by the current government," said Manning.

The concept of emphasizing wealth creation was put forward by Dr Tom Brzustowski, former president of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council and a professor with the Univ of Ottawa's Telfer School of Management.

Brzustowski contended that without wealth creation as an explicit facet of innovation policy, Canadians won't be able to maintain or enhance the standard of living and services they've become accustomed to. The solution is to focus more on downstream activities connecting R&D to wealth creation and develop a more entrepreneurial culture so that companies can add value to their products, processes and services.

In a paper upon which Brzustowski based his presentation, he outlines measures that can be taken to enhance the various elements of the innovation system. For industry, significant increases in funding should be allocated to the Industrial Research Assistance Program, boosting its budget to $600 million annually. He also calls for restoration of the Unsolicited Proposal Fund "in order to help Canadian companies acquire market experience with new products". Canadian policy makers should also closely examine the US Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program with the view to adapting it for the Canadian innovation environment.

reduce dependency on natural resources

The need to replace Canada's extractive or natural resources-based economy with one in which creativity is given greater weight was discussed by Dr Peter Hackett, former president and CEO of Alberta Ingenuity and executive professor at the Univ of Alberta's School of Business.

Hackett argued that a roots cause analysis is required to develop a growth agenda for Canada rather than an incremental agenda that's being followed now.

"It's hard to do. It's hard to give advice to government," he said. "We need the creativity of people and the capacity of society to accept innovation. We need both strands. If you have one or the other, things won't go forward."

Several speakers noted the challenge posed by Canada's natural resources wealth and its role in lessening the impetus for greater innovation. From an historical perspective, Canadian firms are more profitable than their US counterparts and many have been hugely successful without the need to adopt new technologies or embrace more innovative business practices.

But as Dr Peter Nicholson noted, there are several factors at play which could undermine Canada's natural advantage. The US economy is becoming more protective due to national security concerns and the recession, emerging markets are rapidly moving up the innovation food chain and environmental concerns are threatening the stability of our resource dependence.

"We need to focus our investments especially ICT (information and communications technologies)," said Nicholson, president of the Council of Canadian Academies. (CCA) "We need to develop sector strategies to catalyze areas of opportunity (such as aerospace and ICT). "We also need a deeper understanding of the innovation process and government s have to re-build their capacity to examine sectors which has deteriorated greatly over the past several years."

Dr John Leggat a consultant with CFN Consultants and former head of Defence Research and Development Canada (DRDC), argued that more operational research is required to eliminate the mismatch between science and decision making. He also pointed to the value of expert assessments conducted by the CCA in providing sound science advice for policy makers. But he noted that the five assessments CCA is capable of conducting annually should be significantly boosted to between 25 and 50.

The need to enhance the mechanisms that feed into S&T decision making were the focus of several presentations including Jeff Kinder, a member of the conference's organizing committee and a PhD candidate in science policy at Carleton Univ. Kinder argued for the need for a more public entity to provide science advice to government, adding that "there's a hole in the system".

Other countries such as the UK have mechanisms that fill the gap, such as a strong S&T foresight capability and a Parliamentary Office of S&T that can issue directives on pressing issues in a relatively short period of time. In the US, the Association for the Advancement of Science has a strong policy capacity for science generally and for analysis of government S&T budget allocations.

"The CCA does good work but it's time consuming. We need something more timely to inform debate," said Kinder. "It should be arm's length and independent of government."

Kinder is part of a group of about 25 government and academic experts who have committed to continuing the discussion on new science policy mechanisms. — a primary aim of the conference.

R$