Editorial - 16-13

The selection process used for the first competition under the Atlantic Innovation Fund (AIF) once again raises serious questions about the often awkward relationship between determining scientific excellence and the federal government’s role in regional development. In this case, several projects were added to the winner’s list after the AIF’s advisory board delivered its recommendations (see lead story).

While there’s no evidence to suggest that the politically selected projects are unworthy, one has to question the wisdom of a process in which peer review is trumped by political considerations. The question becomes even more relevant when one looks at the history of the agency in question — the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency (ACOA).

ACOA (and its predecessor, the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion) has been rightly criticized for failing to live up to its promise to stimulate S&T and innovation in Atlantic Canada. Instead, the charge of political pork-barrelling has tainted ACOA since its formation 15 years ago. The billions it has allocated in the ensuing years have done little to develop innovation capacity.

AIF was supposed to be different. It was supposed to represent an innovative approach to economic stimulus free of political interference. Whether the addition of eight projects by the responsible minister undermines that contention will only be known once the projects run their course. For the second round of competitions, Ottawa should accept the views of the advisory board and leave well enough alone.

Mark Henderson, Managing Editor