Alberta's Foresight and the Need for Over-the-Horizon Thinking

By Paul Dufour

Precisely 25 years ago, I co-wrote a report with Don LeRoy for Canada's leading research think tank — the Science Council of Canada — on the evolving role of the provincial research organizations and their mandates in support of technology and innovation for Canadian business and society. Among the group of players we examined was the oldest of these, the Alberta Research Council (est. 1921), generously supported then, as it is now, by the provincial government along with other partners.

We also explored the growing linkages among these research organizations in developing joint projects as well as acting as key national brokers for technology policy. Today, that network has grown to over 2,000 experts conducting over $250 million of R&D and commercialization and is known as Inno-ventures Canada ( I-CAN).

So it was back to the future when the ARC invited me to their June 11-14 Jasper Innovation Forum to help shape new directions for its research agenda and future interactions.

The by-invitation, Chatham House rules only initiative brought together about 60 of the leading players engaged in the emerging national and global policy issues centred on food, energy, water (appropriately, FEW). FEW is emerging as a critical nexus bringing together a loosely-knit coalition of governments, industry, research organizations, communities and cultural and civil society organizations. All are seeking new ways to improve the human condition through a combination of social action, technological research and sound public policy options.

The Forum — while understandably somewhat Alberta-centric — had a good cross-section of these groups, including experts from the developing world, and importantly, youth who will inherit the knowledge of today and hopefully respond affirmatively to the question, (borrowed from a famous Robert Heilbroner essay); "What has posterity ever done for me?"

The timing of this Forum was propitious. The Alberta government had announced its multi-million dollar technology action plan focused on applying science and research for innovations in key sectors; the OECD had just released its 2008 Economic Survey of Canada arguing, among other things, for possible prizes offered for technological breakthroughs in addressing energy challenges (www.oecd.org); the G8 Energy Ministers had met in Japan to outline an action plan on climate and energy futures, including carbon capture and storage technologies and biofuels (www.international. gc.ca); and the G8+5 science academies produced a statement on the transition to a low-carbon society calling for greater attention to the research and technology issues associated with this in both the developed and developing worlds (www.nas.edu).

At the Forum, the president of ARC along with its chair of foresight, ably set out the agenda and the challenges faced by society: how can we collectively develop an effective research and technology agenda that enhances and develops innovative approaches to FEW issues we are facing today and in the near future?

There was no expectation that the forum would solve all of these issues, but that at a minimum, several markers and trends with potential research agendas could be outlined along with the identification of an expert network to creatively work at this in the coming months and years. The Forum was indeed creative with excellent lead-off speakers on each topic; facilitators prodding and teasing out the energy and thought processes from the participants; and a stand- up comic qua newscaster highlighting the need for some levity to get important messages across.

The interaction was excellent with a great deal of time devoted to networking —probably the single most important method of stimulating ideas and ensuring contacts and friendships. And, of course, with the cross-section of many disciplines in all fields ranging from energy, environment, media, the arts, social sciences to finance and management, the setting was ideal for stimulating dialogue.

An evening with the premier of Alberta who outlined his vision of the importance of technology and social engagement for the future of Albertans in the world was certainly a highlight. It demonstrated the keen interest that province possesses in championing these key areas of Canadian and global import. Indeed, the sub-text for the Forum was equally to help trigger stronger innovative thinking within a traditionally commodity-based industry community in that province and to make bridges to other partnerships for a new agenda.

It was recognized that Alberta has a growing leadership and responsibility role, one that was underscored by the premier. How can it work more closely with the rest of Canada and actively engage on emerging knowledge-based issues and public policy? (In fact, this was subsequently highlighted by the significant $4-billion climate change announcement by the premier on July 8).

In short, the forum was long on ideas. Such independent and active support from Alberta's research council is clearly healthy. It is something our think tanks and science advisory mechanisms could perhaps learn from as they examine the ecology of their new spaces for novel thinking about Canadians' collective future and place in the world.

If there is one message that emerges from this exercise it is that ultimately, technology is a rather simple issue. It is the social and policy-political arenas that complicate our challenges, and with good reason. Any solutions to the FEW nexus will come through a real interaction of social and natural sciences knowledge. ARC with I-CAN should certainly play a key role in making this happen by continuing to draw on the natural interdisciplinarity of these issues. The challenge to our knowledge organizations in this country is there.

It is useful perhaps to recall some wisdom from EF Schumacher's last talk in 1977, called, "Caring, For Real":

"If you want to be a shoemaker, it is not good enough to make good shoes, and to know all about making shoes. You also have to know a lot about feet. Because the aim of the shoe is to fit the foot. But most of us never thought about this."

Paul Dufour reported on this forum in his capacity with the former Office of the National Science Advisor. The views expressed herein are his own.