Interview with the new NRC president

The National Research Council’s new president is committed to aggressively pursuing increases to its A-base and completing a process of renewal to ensure that Canada’s biggest public R&D performer remains a globally recognized “tier one” organization. In his first major interview since taking the reins at NRC, Dr Pierre Coulombe says the NRC is an undervalued strategic asset with deep knowledge in several areas critical to Canada’s transition to a knowledge-based economy and its ability to launch horizontal R&D programs to address specific problems.

But Coulombe warns that the NRC is at a precarious crossroads and without additional —and permanent — funding increases, the relevancy and status of the organization could be at risk. He plans to continue the efforts of his predecessor, Dr Arthur Carty, in lobbying the central agencies and hopes that once the renewal exercise is complete by the fall he’ll have a new strategic plan to justify new expenditures.

“The renewal exercise that we are in right now is a good framework to make the case, that the NRC can not continue to be a tier-one organization only on sunset funds. The A-base budget for NRC primarily should be used to develop and maintain the core of what NRC is all about,” says Coulombe. “In the areas where there is relevancy, the A-base budget is necessary to maintain the leadership position within tier one. Without a strong core, you cannot capture significant value with sunset funding.”

Coulombe says NRC’s success in developing community-based clusters should put the organization in a good position when determining what role it will play in the government’s overall commercialization strategy. But he would like to take one step further and tie the success of the clusters in meeting pre-determined targets to the type of funding they receive.

“Let’s say we have five clusters and they are funded for five years. What I would propose to government is, if two of those clusters have performed above standards, they should be moved into the A-base. Another cluster may have under-performed, but we can explain why. Give that cluster another five years (of funding). The other two clusters, we made the wrong decision. They were a mistake. Close them down ... That would be my approach to the government.”

When it comes to the core activities of the main institutes, Coulombe is adamant that an increase in A-base funding is essential for the future viability of NRC. Using the Biological Research Institute (BRI) as an example, he argues that its success in fostering economic growth and company spin-offs is due in large part to the high calibre of its personnel and infrastructure. Unless they are maintained and enhanced, its core capabilities and enabling role in a wide range of socially and economically relevant R&D will be diminished.

“If we are not increasing the A-base budget, after some time you start losing momentum and unfortunately you start losing your leadership position,” he says. “The risk we face is that is the A-base is never increased, you go from tier one to tier two to tier three and then you close the doors. To be relevant, you need a strong core of competencies. In this knowledge economy, you must have core people with the knowledge and are able to transfer it to other parties. It doesn’t work the other way around.”

The renewal initiative was launched under acting president Dr Michael Raymont, who has since returned to his former position as VP technology and industry support. Under Dr Sherif Barakat, VP renewal, the process has nearly completed its first phase, which culminates this month with two seminars with various stakeholders. The initial phase is preoccupied with gathering information on other jurisdictions, examining technology trends and determining trends within government, industry and academia.

There are already indications that the renewal process could lead to big changes. A commercialization unit established just last year is in abeyance, and its DG Susan Sanford has left the organization. More recently, a new life sciences VP has been appointed along with notification that a re-organization of executive responsibilities is about to be implemented.

The renewal process is running parallel to the federal government’s development of a commercialization strategy, led by Industry Canada. Coulombe says the two organizations are working closely and suggests that the NRC’s clusters could play a prominent role in how the NRC fits into the larger framework. The NRC has just published a substantial booklet on its technology clusters, positioning the organization for a central role in any new strategy.

“Clusters would be a nice anchor for looking at commercialization. Maybe we can put that on the table ... so they can be put at work in a more precise way regarding the commercialization agenda,” he says. “The ultimate goal of these clusters is to improve the competitiveness of the industry around the clusters ... For me, commercialization means selling more products and improving the revenue side, but that’s only part of the equation. What is more important is improving on the profit side. The NRC can play a very important role.”

Since his arrival in Ottawa, Coulombe has quickly moved into the centre of the bureaucracy focused on S&T. He continues to sit on the governing board of Science and Engineering Research Canada (NSERC) as an unofficial member and is part of the Committee of Research Councils and Foundations, chaired by Carty in his capacity as National Science Advisor.

“It makes a lot of sense from a government perspective, showing the central agencies that all these organizations are working together.”

Coulombe is also content to be working out of the NRC campus in suburban east Ottawa, resisting the temptation of occupying a more grandiose office downtown.

“The laboratories for physics, optics and quantum mechanics are there and you’ve got all this fancy stuff for biology, proteomics and genomics,” says Coulombe, whose background includes training as a physics engineer. “If I had my office there, I would be spending a significant amount of time in Gabrielle Adam’s lab and Paul Corkum’s lab. I would never be in my office.”

R$