Requiem for a science council

By Paul Dufour

Spare a thought for public and transparent science advisory councils in Canada. They have all gone the way of the dodo. This summer, readers of RE$EARCH MONEY were alerted to the elimination of one of our original science advisory councils — Quebec's Conseil de la science et de la technologie (CST) (R$, July 22/11). For over three decades, the Conseil was a major force enlivening and informing the dialogue for science and technology in society. It produced a wide array of thoughtful and practical reports for numerous Quebec administrations over its life-span.

Many of its recommendations had impact on policy-making and on science culture. The Conseil's reports are now archived and can be accessed for historians and others to remind us of debates past; policy portends of the future, and sad to say, opportunities lost (the Conseil also produced a useful 30-year history in 2002 that provides an excellent perspective of its scope).

Arguments for the Conseil's closure, a small organization — ostensibly for cost-savings — are risible. Increasingly, governments (in Canada) fail to grasp that knowledge is a highly public good. In this era of democratic social media and open source information, the notion that one can per force shorten the length of the arm of science advisory organizations to the government apparatus is one sure way to stifle healthy debate, not to mention curtail viable policy options. As we have learned in numerous instances when sound outside advice is ignored, this practice can often be detrimental to desired outcomes. This is especially the case in science, where knowledge and expertise are public currencies that have de facto repercussions, both domestic and international.

In closing the Conseil, the Quebec government argued that it will have an internal mechanism for advice with a more efficient structure in place, including a new umbrella for its three granting councils, overseen in part by the appointment of a first-ever chief scientist. We wish him bonne chance.

Current practice outside Canada shows a growing trend to increase the modes of science advice and ensure scientific integrity. Pluralism has its benefits. Indeed, the Conseil had produced a report assessing global good practice in the various models of science governance and advice (just as had the former federal Council of Science and Technology Advisers in some of its reports to Canadians). The CST also published reports on such broad topics as R&D tax incentives, intellectual property issues, science culture, industrial innovation and regional development, in addition to critical commentary on the effects of both provincial and federal S&T initiatives or strategies.

The Conseil was also requested to produce a regular "rapport de conjoncture" (state of S&T report, the last being on the emerging trends in open innovation), something the federal Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) has tried to emulate. The Quebec Conseil provided all of its advice in an open space allowing for debate around central questions of how and, with what impact, knowledge and society intersect.

The CST had other unique features, several of which were homologous to its former sister organization — the Science Council of Canada. The CST:

* could concentrate on long-range, often intractable problems, and conduct in-depth studies (improving science culture and education in schools);

* could work on detection of future problems, providing an early warning function to help influence government policies and priorities (emerging technologies, neurosciences, nanotechnology and biotech);

* was able to take expert positions without implicating the government directly. Because of its credibility, it could stimulate and actively participate in parliamentary and other societal discussions (future of the social sciences, foresight for technology);

* was not limited by politically sensitive considerations (the impact of federal R&D programs and investments in Quebec);

* could undertake studies at the request of government and engage in international assessments ("state of science" report on globalization);

* brought to bear public input and expertise of a wide cross section of eminent people through an institutional structure designed to express their objectivity and autonomy (long- term perspectives or grand challenges affecting Quebec society); and,

* had sound institutional memory that provided important checks and balances in policy making.

Above all, the CST provided valuable reflection on how Quebec society viewed the importance of the growing interface of science, culture and innovation with society. It also served as a training ground for future decision-makers and scholars.

Others will provide a proper judgment on the Conseil's overall success but, as we have seen, policy context very much matters these days. There are some lessons to be learned for what remains of Canada's weakened independent science advisory capacity.

First, no occupational group or sector has a monopoly on wisdom in a knowledge- based society. While it's fair to expect that advice can be sought from many sources, it is nonetheless critical to have a sort of "crap detector" with sound expertise, public integrity and a corporate memory to help wade through difficult options and conflicting advice in an independent fashion. Decision-makers should expect to receive advice they want, as well as that which they have not requested since "stuff happens" (providing the latter is properly contextualized). Otherwise, these boards can quickly lose the public trust, repeat failed advice, and ultimately become a burden on taxpayers.

Above all, before performing a topectomy on a vital organ of the knowledge society, decision-makers would be well advised to assess the whole body consequences. One never knows what functions you may be impairing or destroying. As Dr John de la Mothe and I argued in a Nature editorial:

"The ability to respond to new demands from knowledge-thirsty societies and truly global issues will strain the bond between politician and scientist. Good science policy is needed as never before."

And, as decision-making becomes imbedded with critical issues anchored in scientific advance and rapid technological development, we are ripe for more experiments in the science policy domain. Our public, research communities, parliamentarians and policy-makers should be demanding and welcoming well-grounded, independent science advice engaging Canadian society in a meaningful way; at least those who embrace the fruits of speciation.

Paul Dufour is a principal of PaulicyWorks and a fellow of the Institute for Science, Society and Policy, Univ of Ottawa.