Federal departments renew efforts to launch cross-cutting projects without new funding

Building upon the experience of FINE

The ongoing efforts of federal laboratories to reach out and collaborate amongst themselves and with other sectors have taken a new turn with the decision to identify and implement broad, cutting-edge research projects without additional funding. The move follows a realization that the current proposal to secure funding for the Federal Innovation Networks of Excellence (FINE) initiative was taking far too long and had failed to convince Ottawa’s powerbrokers that new funding was justified.

A two-day workshop earlier this month involving 40 representatives of most of the science-based departments and agencies (SBDAs) has produced what some participants describe as a breakthrough that will reallocate existing resources at the level of specific issues. There’s ample evidence of a growing need for wide-ranging collaboration in the areas of health, environment and security and a list of pilot proposals will be whittled down in the coming months (see box).

The individual SBDAs will continue to devote resources to fulfilling their respective mandates. But there will be a renewed effort to select common areas that have goals that cut across their areas of expertise and draw in external resources. The creation of an S&T assistant DM governance board will significantly bolster the scope of the existing S&T Community Secretariat, possibly encompassing human resources and other functions to give the initiative a structural foundation on which to build.

“This signals a fair shift in culture … to build a much more collaborative style that perhaps doesn’t exist the way it needs to right now. We’ve tended to stay in our own lanes and stay within our own missions,” says Dr John Leggat, S&T ADM at National Defence and co-chair of the new governance board. “This doesn’t require any new resources but in the end it may stimulate investment from government or other sources. This is not just about science but the integration of science with policy. It’s built on the work of (recently retired) Bob Slater who helped create the vision.”

Leggat confirms that the FINE proposal wasn’t being given serious consideration by the central agencies, which have long asked the SBDA’s to demonstrate the willingness and ability to conduct horizontal S&T.

“It’s necessary to go through the ‘show me’, although there are no specific hurdles,” he says. “If we were to tie this to new money, we would have to wait for new money to appear. Our decision to go forward is in part a frustration and a reaction to an overwhelming need in this area. We’ve been trying to address this for two years.”

5NR Dead

The decision to seriously pursue horizontal collaborative R&D comes at a particularly critical time for the SBDAs. The landmark memorandum of understanding on S&T for sustainable development — dubbed the 5NR for its departments with natural resources mandates (plus Health Canada) — finally died a slow but quiet death. Discussions over the past two years to revive the MOU (the initial agreement expired more than two years ago) proved futile, reflecting a low level of activity under the MOU and the changing environment for collaborative, public good S&T.

A report on the 5NR commissioned by Environment Canada from The Impact Group (the majority owner of RE$EARCH MONEY) says the MOU was an experiment in “thematic S&T horizontality”. While important, it contends that such an approach did not address the need for structural change.

“Structural horizontality implies the need for the government’s S&T resources to be managed in a matrix,” states the report. “There is also a need to be able to swiftly shift S&T resources to address new, high-priority (interdepartmental) S&T files as they emerge, without going through a labourious and time-consuming negotiating process among stakeholders.”

Another development is the new mandate of the Council of S&T Advisors (CSTA). It has been asked to examine the federal government’s internal and external S&T linkages with the view to bringing Canadian and international S&T to bear on issues requiring coordinated knowledge and action (R$, May 22/03). But that report won’t be released for at least one year, leaving the SBDAs in limbo without a new directive to pursue horizontal collaboration.

Leggat and others say the decision to forge ahead with the new governance board is not attempt to pre-empt or bypass the work of the CSTA. But there is a sense of urgency to move forward among SBDAs that is compounded by recent events such as SARS, West Nile virus and cross-border trade that make it an opportune time for renewed resolve.

“We’re going to do this in parallel. We need to strike while the iron is hot,” says Leggat. “Waiting is not in our best interest and we can adopt CSTA principles as they develop them. The CSTA recommendations will gel pretty soon.”

Leggat adds that Dr Kevin Keough, Health Canada’s chief scientist and CSTA co-chair, is ideally positioned to act as the thread between the two organizations.

The two most prominent examples of cross-cutting collaboration are the Toxic Substance Research Initiative and the CBRN Research & Technology Initiative (CRTI) — two programs that addressed pressing, immediate needs. Some officials familiar with current SBDA initiative say that it’s little more than a recycling of FINE linked to hot button issues, with the chief difference being the lack of new resources, and questions remain as to how the re-allocation of existing funds will occur.

The initiative’s defenders contend that a certain amount of re-allocation occurs in every department and it’s a matter of convincing the relevant SBDAs that funding projects of common interest in the best approach.

“”We’ve got something that’s realistic, achievable and not threatening to departmental support and missions,” says Leggat. “The challenge is in the drilling down.”

R$