Paul Dufour, fellow and adjunct professor, ISSP, University of Ottawa

Finding common ground — A revitalized agenda for scientists and politicians

By Paul Dufour

There's a sunnier disposition among Canada's science community these days. Maybe it's because they have read the Liberal Party platform which states: "We will value science and treat scientists with respect". This is an extraordinary statement for a political party taking power. In the annals of science policy history, it is unprecedented. Hopefully, the Trudeau administration will make good on its various pledges to base its policies on facts, and eventually appoint a Chief Science Officer (note the wording) whose remit will be to ensure that government science is fully available to the public.

For good measure, the platform also states that scientists will be able to speak freely, and scientific analyses will be considered when the government makes decisions. In short, scientists will be back on tap — but not on top. That is for the good. After all, Canadians elected our political representatives, not the science community, to help frame policy and adroitly steer the country.

Some will claim that most of these pledges on science are easy to deliver; and they are virtually costless. As Trudeau said in a Financial Times interview: "I'm on the side of both economists and people who say why put off investing when we have an opportunity now". Fair enough. But funny things can happen to people, principles and pledges once in power. Slogans can collide with hard choices. And science is a marginal policy issue at best, with little political clout or constituency; the new grassroots science advocacy groups notwithstanding.

Those that have been arguing for a more fulsome chief scientist should cast their eyes across the Pond where the UK — with its own national chief scientific adviser, chief scientists in almost every department, Innovate UK, and a Parliamentary Office for S&T — is performing abysmally in R&D, sliding even further than Canada in global rankings. Different and more do not always equal better. That said, low hanging fruit are there for the picking for an avant-gardiste Canadian STI agenda.

Let's start with the Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) whose mandated 2014 state of the nation science and technology report was held back and whose advice remains confidential, despite calls for increasing the nation's public science culture. It could be dissolved with another more open and representative advisory body created. On the other hand, the history of such bodies in Canada is far from salutary — they come and go with little learning of what actually works. Perhaps using existing bodies to provide punctual commentary or analysis on critical public policy issues requiring external scientific input could be explored along with on-going evaluations of their success, rather than the facile option of establishing yet another council for a new government.

Then there is the matter of government research beset by unnecessary barriers, cuts and declining morale. As a 2014 expert panel on government science has recognized, the current model of internal S&T within the federal government should evolve in relation to changing external realities. Not that this is a new subject. We have witnessed several such reviews in the past.

The expert panel focussed largely on those S&T activities carried out by or on behalf of federal government to fulfil its mandates. The panel completed its task, handing over its confidential recommendations to the senior bureaucracy. Ensuring its follow-up would be a logical mandate for a new, legislated Chief Science Officer, while at the same time adopting science integrity principles for use of evidence in government research and decision-making (see R$, October 10/15 on the Science Integrity Project).

While the Liberal Party has remained silent on the NDP idea for a Parliamentary Science Officer, it would make sense for the Trudeau administration to consider a resource centre or specialized STI office for all Parliamentarians. Clearly, the great number of new MPs will require assistance and analysis in dealing effectively with science-based issues coming forward from their Parliamentary committees and constituencies.

Consideration should also be given to ensuring that Canada's international image in science (which has suffered greatly from the muzzling saga and ideological stands on global climate change) is restored with careful assessment for using diplomacy more aggressively in promoting partnerships while advancing our aid, trade and statecraft. Science — international by nature — can be a perfect instrument for this if used wisely.

With the Harper 2014 federal STI strategy likely to be set aside, it remains to be seen if the Trudeau government can leverage its new found partnerships with other provincial and territorial governments and First Nations in helping shape a pan-Canadian approach to STI. The 1987 National S&T Policy signed by all governments was the first such experiment — it does not have to be the last.

Elements of the business community are proposing a more muscular approach from the federal government, blending innovation, science and technology through a new super ministry. Canada has experimented in the past with such machinery changes, including a ministry of Industry, Science and Technology. It is simply not enough to continually advocate for a linear approach to innovation — there is no one policy intervention or portfolio that will address the innovation gap in this country. Indeed, it is often forgotten that most of the value of innovation is associated with its diffusion, adoption and adaptation by users and consumers.

It behooves the private sector whose R&D performance has been declining year over year to better integrate knowledge investments as part of their overall business planning and management. Some private sector alliances for technology are emerging but business associations should weigh carefully the advantages of having competitiveness enhanced through more sophisticated strategic innovation thrusts.

Finally, the university, college and granting council leadership in this country should actively support the needs of their clientele, in addition to working with grassroots science, environment and research organizations, by coming forward with creative, joined-up approaches in partnering with federal and provincial decision-makers.

This is not an overly ambitious agenda. It just needs recognition from the new PM with a strong signal (perhaps via a high-profile speech) that these steps are necessary to establish a common ground for greater prosperity in Canada's next 150 years.

Paul Dufour is a fellow and adjunct professor, ISSP, University of Ottawa