Paul Dufour

The Maple Leaf , the Blackberry & Shawinigan Science Policy

By Paul Dufour

In this era of rapid technological change and media saturation, psychologists and other social scientists have been busy analysing a unique, modern-day hubris. It’s known as ASN (Acquired Situational Narcissism) that develops among some pop stars, high-priced athletes, politicians and CEOs. Experts have also identified another condition that politicians in particular are prone to developing: CPA, or Continuous Partial Attention. This phenomenon must always be borne in mind when citizens and stakeholders make their case for research support. Innovation is only one of many complex, conflicting and often contradictory issues that leaders must factor in, always with an eye to the polls and what’s in it for their respective constituencies.

In his more recent speeches, the Canadian prime minister has been big on “branding” Canadian excellence, and using the imagery of the maple leaf to do this. Witness his remarks to the Microsoft Summit on Canadian Innovation in August: “the bold strategy of our government (is) to make the Maple Leaf a global trademark for innovation excellence”.

The PM has also taken to singling out the true leaders of corporate innovation, such as the Research in Motion (think Blackberry) founder’s philanthropic gesture in the creation of a unique centre for theoretical physics. The PM and his team— along with various “ginger groups” of elites from the academic and public sectors — have been behind novel, world class policy experiments. These include the Canada Foundation for Innovation (CFI), Canada Research Chairs, Genome Canada, Atlantic Innovation Fund and Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Now the PM’s promoting the current innovation and skills strategy that, if we are to believe the recent Speech from the Throne, will spruce up the next Budget.

Lest it goes straight to — or is that from?— his heart, Canada’s PM knows it’s not all been peaches and cream. It’s been more like guns and roses. The research community took a hit under the mid-1990s Program Review exercise from which it’s still recovering. Some evidence? Government labs in Canada — recent creative defence R&D initiatives aside — are figuring out how to re-invigorate the public face of research after years of cuts and erosion of infrastructure. Skills demands continue to remain high in many sectors, with questions lingering over the scale of the so-called brain drain. The federal-provincial dynamics on innovation policies haven’t seen their best years, but they are gradually showing signs of a turn around as S&T ministers gather again after a decade-long hiatus. Industrial R&D has suffered its first significant fall in almost four decades. Canada’s neighbour south of the border is continuing to invest massive new amounts into research, in part triggered by security and terrorist threats.

THE LIBERAL RECORD

While some of these gaps have been raised in the latest in a long list of innovation consultations, it might be instructive to match today’s Liberal record to the original set of promises outlined by the PM when he began issuing ideas on innovation.

The WayBack Machine now takes us to that period. Date: October 13, 1993. Place: Kitchener ON.

Then Liberal leader Jean Chrétien is outlining how the his party will develop a more innovative economy by investing in science and technology (S&T). He notes that investing in R&D is a key element to Canada’s economic development and productivity. An innovative business “culture” is required, as is sound investment in human resources and the application of knowledge.

The Liberal Party platform said in 1993 that it supported doubling the country’s overall investment in R&D while understanding that this can only take place as Canada is able to absorb and manage such an increase. The 1993 manifesto also called for establishment of a Canadian Technology Network to disseminate information on technology across Canada.

It argued for a technology partnership program to help commercialize technology between Canadian universities, government facilities and the private sector.

It suggested support for university research through stable, long-term funding.

The Liberals underscored their support the Networks of Centres of Excellence.

They would invest in environmental technologies.

They would develop and expand the mandate of the Defence Industry Productivity Program (DIPP).

They would review government S&T policies on a regular basis.

They would establish a Canadian Engineers Program.

Today, the record is not bad overall. But in at least one critical area of “branding” excellence, the engagement is still lacking. The Kitchener tract contended that there would be efforts to forge strategic alliances between Canadian and international partners. It also called for an enhanced role for the Trade Commissioner Service, linked to a strongly qualified technology and science attaché network that would gather overseas information for diffusion on emerging technologies, potential alliances and opportunities for Canadian exports abroad.

To some extent, the Team Canada missions have tried to address this, but Canada is still too often seen as an unreliable partner in S&T. Admittedly, some efforts have been undertaken by the granting councils and the CFI. But the fact remains that the essence of the 2000 Simard report to the PM’s Advisory Council on Science and Technology on Canada’s role in international S&T has not been fully acted upon. And if one is to assess the current innovation and skills agenda, the lacunae persists. This area needs to be addressed — with adequate funding and strategic partnerships in both the developed and developing world — if the objective is to broadcast the Maple Leaf as the global standard for innovation and research excellence.

One final point. In his remarkable speech to the Royal Society of London earlier this year, Britain’s PM Tony Blair was right in saying that science is a central part, not a separate part, of common culture. A strong campaign to communicate this with society through the active participation of research communities (and a new Canadian Academies?) is a sage path to ensuring that science is seen as ONE key ingredient to Canada’s economic, trade, environmental, health and other social goals. Messages such as these always have more impact when they are delivered (in both senses of the word) by political leaders, not just the converted.

Paul Dufour is associate editor of Outlook on Science Policy.