Normand calls for increased investment in federal S&T in wake of latest CSTA report

Canada’s secretary of state for science, research and development says the federal government has no choice but to deal quickly with the structure and funding of its own science and technology activities. Dr Gilbert Normand acknowledges the time has arrived to confront a host of issues surrounding federal S&T, including more funding and the elevation of his office to the ministerial level.

Normand made the comments in an interview with RE$EARCH MONEY following the release of the latest report from the Council of Science and Technology Advisors (CSTA), of which he is the chair. While the report — Science and Technology in the Public Service (STEPS) — offers little more than a handful of general recommendations on the quality, relevance, transparency and ethical nature of federally performed S&T, Normand says it will provide the mechanism for the government to take direct action.

“The science and technology structure of government is on the table at this time,” says Normand. “We will also be obliged to put significant amounts of money into government activities. If the government wants to be a leader, it needs to be both a catalyst and a performer of science and technology.”

Normand says the STEPS report was presented to the Cabinet Committee for Economic Union (CCEU) in June and both Cabinet and the prime minister are well aware of its contents and the problems facing federal S&T. An indication of the need to focus on reviving federal S&T was revealed earlier this year when RE$EARCH MONEY reported that science-based departments and agencies were making at least $12.5 billion in multi-year proposals as part of the Innovation White Paper process (R$, May 10/01).

“Some ministers have suffered cuts since 1994 (program review) and some infrastructure is in very bad shape,” he says. “The other big issue is the replacement of scientific personnel. We need to replace about 5,000 people in the next five years.”

Normand’s views on the state of federal S&T and the need for structural and fiscal renewal are far more forceful than anything contained in the report, which is ostensibly the result of one year’s examination into ensuring S&T excellence in the public service. Running a mere 17 pages (excluding appendices and bibliography), A Framework for Excellence in Federally Performed Science and Technology deals with big issues such as relevance and transparency, outlining an approach to achieving excellence without the benefit of examples.

The recommendations are identified as four pillars supporting a framework for excellence in federal S&T — a structure the CSTA describes as essential for fostering excellence. The framework rests on a foundation of four conditions supporting the pillars — leadership, management, capacity, and science/policy interface — but few details are provided and its recommendations are not proscriptive.

Brian Giroux, chair of the STEPS subcommittee and executive director of the Scotia Fundy Mobile Gear Fisherman’s Association, says the CSTA mandate precludes a focus on specific issues or S&T bodies. But he adds that many of the concepts underpinning the quest for excellence in federal S&T are directly transferable and applicable to government departments and agencies, and that the underlying message of the STEPS is one of action. After years of cuts and a lack of horizontal coordination, federal S&T needs revamping.

“It’s time to fish or cut bait because we’re at the crossroads here and we had better be sure the (federal S&T) system functions properly and efficiently,” says Giroux. “You can’t expect a scientist to sit at a bench and work when he has no budget. We need to address issues of salaries, structure and infrastructure. It has to be rebuilt.”

UNDERLYING MESSAGE IS ONE OF ACTION

Normand says the absence of specific recommendations is no accident, since the CSTA purposely steers clear of such advice. But he emphasizes that the underlying message of the report is that the time has come for dealing with federal S&T in a comprehensive fashion. The promised release of the Innovation White Paper will almost certainly deal with the federal role in innovation, and may also include suggestions for how the advisory and management structure governing S&T can be improved. The momentum for change is also emphasized in the recent report on innovation by the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, which contains 18 recommendations aimed at government (R$, June 25/01).

“Right now there is an inability of the government to track the activities inside government. We don’t have the structure,” says Normand. “The prime minister and Cabinet are very conscious of the situation but they had to wait for the money to be available before making concrete changes. We’ve already put money into the granting councils and other bodies and we now must put money into the government.”

A key element of Norman’s approach to revitalizing federal S&T is a strengthening of his office, increasing the job from secretary of state to full minister residing with the Prime Minister’s Office. The idea is supported by the Industry Standing Committee, which argued that such a change is a critical component of changes that must be made to the federal S&T governance structure.

“Right now I don’t have the ability to adequately supervise S&T activity in all departments,” says Normand. “If we want to be able to take direct action very soon, we will have to change some mechanisms. We have an obligation for transparency and openness. We will see during the fall with the Prime Minister’s Office what kinds of changes the prime minister is ready to make and how far he is ready to go.”

In an indication of the complexity and sensitivity of proposing changes to federal S&T, the report’s most contentious and proscriptive statements are not contained with the recommendations. The CSTA expresses concern over the numerous capacity challenges facing government, including outdated staffing rules, an aging workforce and poorly defined career advancement. It also notes that scientific facilities, platforms and equipment are deteriorating to the point that government’s ability to perform and attract skilled personnel is being compromised.

R$