Expert panel argues for a solid research base, greater coherency in S&T investments,

RE$EARCH MONEY On-Line Budget Discussion

Anticipation within the S&T community leading up to the March 4th federal Budget made the government's plans for the sector the subject of considerable speculation. With the Budget's release RE$EARCH MONEY assembled a panel of five experts to participate in a one-hour on-line discussion. The following article is a synthesis that captures highlights of the discussion, the full text of which is available at www.researchmoneyinc.com.

Persistent concerns over the federal government's commitment to and strategic approach to research and innovation dominated RE$EARCH MONEY's first on-line discussion of S&T issues facing Canada in the 21st Century. While certain Budget measures such as the new SME pilot and medical isotope programs were positively viewed, the lack of coherence in the support for R&D and its connection to commercial outcomes is considered a key future priority.

A majority of the five on-line panel members agreed that much more work is required to come up with an effective, workable S&T strategy that pulls together its disparate components and complements the larger economy and social priorities of the government.

"There is little that we would recognize as a coordinated and integrated strategy. It certainly reveals a limited understanding of the key points made in last year's STIC (Science, Technology and Innovation Council) report and the (report on low business R&D spending) from the Council of Canadian Academies. The strategy presented in Advantage Canada was just a listing of current policies," says Dr David Wolfe, professor of Political Sciences at the Univ of Toronto and national coordinator of the Innovation Systems Research Network. "There is an ongoing problem with the way the government understands the relationship between the different components of the innovation system. I think they need to start with a better understanding of where the strengths and weaknesses are and then focus on improving the weak links."

"The federal government's S&T strategy … is a framework and needs to be flushed out towards achieving a strategic roadmap for investments. We have not arrived," says Dr Michael Julius, VP research, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. "We require a plan that contemplates all of the activities required to move discovery into the market place — and we don't have one."

The lack of S&T policy coherence spilled over into a discussion of the Budget's support for the granting councils. With a total of $50 million in new money, the increase does little to address the funding pressures the councils face; a problem compounded by the short, two-year funding horizon the government currently works under.

federal r&d review

Panelists welcomed the Budget's announcement of a comprehensive review of all federal R&D spending (exclusive of government labs). Dr Peter Hackett argues that the review provides an opportunity to get back to basics.

"Start from first principles and do a root cause analysis to develop a modern strategy rather than an incremental, line-by-line review of what we have today," he says.

"Our research support is very fragmented. It does not operate as a strategically coherent system," says Dr Tom Brzustowski, a professor in the commercialization of innovation at the Univ of Ottawa and former president of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. "We need to get over our notion that research is an expense and develop a strategy that connects research and wealth creation. There are countries in our league in S&T that are as prosperous as Canada, but have no natural resources. They've figured out how to do it."

"The review needs to start with a better understanding of size and industrial composition and then proceed to a more realistic assessment of what needs to be done," says Wolfe.

Engene president and CEO Eric Adams says that, from an industrial perspective, the review needs to take a long-term look at where Canada is going and include a focus on life sciences as "the next big thing".

"The opportunity for the Canadian government is to (ensure) long-term, sustainable R&D support for commercialization, for research and for a business environment that supports the massive amount of R&D done in Canada by private sector biotech," he says. "That means further structural changes to make Canada's business environment more attractive, such as was done by the positive announcement of Section 116 of the Canada-US tax treaty."

"There is never enough money for the research base. Never has been, never will be," says Hackett. "We have to invest enough to be at the leading edge and we have to be at that edge with sufficient capital to make a difference. We have to generate investment-grade opportunities that others will want to take forward in Canada and from Canada."

Indications that the Budget at least took tentative steps towards addressing the gaps in Canada's innovation systems came from panelists who welcomed the new initiatives for post-doctoral fellowships (PDF), the production of medical isotopes using alternate technologies and the commercialization pilot program for small businesses (SMEs).

"The PDF program is really good. I consider it one of the seeds for important change," says Brzustowski. "PDFs are great in raising the research capacity of the best labs."

Julius agrees but adds "we will suffer the imbalance of this investment in the absence of material investment in tri-council".

"The commercialization program for SMEs is a great initiative and should probably have been brought in at a higher level," says Wolfe. "It should at least have scope to scale up rapidly if the uptake from firms warrants it."

R$