John de la Mothe

Creative Construction

By John de la Mothe

Now that the dust from the federal elections is settling, it's an opportune time to get back to business and speculate on where the government should be going in terms of science and technology (S&T) policy. This is essential if we are really going to develop a 'New Economy'.

But first, I hope someone noticed that - regardless of what one thinks about other aspects of their policy - the only party that had an S&T-based economic plan was the Liberals. This is not good enough. Nor is it good enough for a leadership wannabe - especially one that espouses an agenda of respect - to fuel a culture of complaint and then expect to be elected. A party has to have a plan that makes sense and fits the real world, and that world pivots on S&T. I find it hard to believe that any party that masks Creationist views would be very pro-science once in power. Let's remember that next time out.

But now that the Liberals are back in the driver's seat, let's not let them off the hook either. Red Book III was a pretty thin collage of gossamer logic. And the 3rd 'Annual Report', following on a commitment made in the March 1996 S&T Review, has been secretly mothballed. (This is not necessarily a bad thing since the first two were pretty useless.) And the directive of Program Review I and II to achieve better horizontal coordination and transparency is still being puzzled over in many departments. Plus ça change.

But here are a few things that I would put high on a list of priorities:

* The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) should be aggressively funded, since every problem of the New Economy, from productivity and competition to community adjustment and innovation, cannot be solved through 'better science' alone. SSHRC is ready to deliver.

* The Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT) should get its collective head out of the sand and join the rest of the government departments in realistically promoting Canada abroad. Its S&T counselors have long been undirected and under-resourced. And DFAIT's S&T 'group', despite the really excellent work of a few stalwart souls, is about as unconnected from the rest of the department's 'priorities' (whatever they are) as they can get. And a large number of DFAIT lifers should leave the diplomatic cocktail circuit long enough to go to the other science and industry-based departments and find out what they're doing and how they can help.

* Industry Canada - which I think has moved light years since 1993 - must continue its work on connectivity and its innovation agenda. But it should not fall backwards into a pork barrel and rust bucket subsidy game. The future isn't in plastics any more, it's in innovation.

* The Canada Foundation for Innovation, which will be getting an additional $100 million for international S&T, should ensure that their expenditures in this area advance Canada's international interests. Canada has badly slipped in its strategic approach to the world - such as almost leaving NATO Science, bungling our longstanding investment in the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), and so on. We don't even know which international commitments we have. So, gosh maybe even by working with the S&T guys at DFAIT, we might come up with a sensible approach for the use of this investment.

* And of course we must move rapidly forward to deal with indirect costs of research.

These are just a few items. But while we focus on the future, let's also guard against our tendency to be seduced by the spin doctors residing at the Business Council on National Issues and The Fraser Institute, who hold that the answer lies in corporate taxes. It doesn't. The answer lies in unleashing the winds of creativity, entrepreneurship and innovation. Or, what Canada's newest Schumpeterian - Paul Martin - now calls "creative construction". Let's get on with the job.

John de la Mothe is director of PRIME (Program for Research on Innovation Management and Economy)