Paul Dufour, fellow with the Institute for Science, Society and Policy, University of Ottawa.

The trouble with voiceless science advice

By Paul Dufour

"It is not enough for scientists to have responsibility as citizens. They have a much greater one than that and different in kind. For scientists have a moral imperative to say what they know. It is going to make them unpopular. It may do worse than make them unpopular. That doesn't matter." — CP Snow.

By now, Canadian taxpayers are probably inured to the vecordious cloak of secrecy that has descended on Ottawa's decision-making processes. But the muzzling of federal government scientists, death of evidence, and assault on reason that has been played up in the press and elsewhere has glossed over yet another dimension of closed access to citizens; an area where Canada's efforts in the past have traditionally been in keeping with global good practice — that of open, well-informed national science policy advice.

Since its creation in 2007, the Science, Technology and Innovation Council (STIC) has provided confidential advice to the federal government. This advisory body of 17 eminent people from the public and private sectors was given a two-fold mandate: to provide the Government of Canada with evidence-based science and technology advice on issues critical to the country's economic development and Canadians' social well-being, and to produce regular reports benchmarking the performance of Canadian S&T and to international standards.

According to Industry Canada media statements, its "streamlined advisory process strengthens the voice of external authorities while helping government decision makers solve complex science, technology and innovation issues". Really?

If accountability and transparency are to matter, how can Canadians know that STIC is effective? On what basis do citizens know that STIC —five years on — has performed well when they have little way of knowing what the input was? Its website is of little help. Postings include a chart of a so-called innovation road map for Canada adapted from that of Connecticut's in 2006, as well as a 2010 state of S&T report.

Indeed, given the publication last month of the Council of Canadian Academies' (CCA) more ambitious state of science and technology report, readers may understandably be perplexed as to why two separate benchmark studies are required from two different organizations commissioned by the same federal patron.

From the outset, STIC was purportedly modelled in part on the Australian Prime Minister's Science, Engineering and Innovation Council. But unlike STIC which reports to a junior minister with two portfolios, the Australian body is chaired by the prime minister with the chief scientist as executive director. It also publishes its advice and summary of its meetings.

The well-respected US model, the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST), responds to the president who has been present at several meetings. It releases its findings, and in keeping with US requirements for open government, its meetings are accessible to the public with most presentations available on its website. The UK Chief Scientific Adviser has developed guidelines for scientific advice and policy-making in government that are updated periodically in an accessible manner. In fact, around the world, most science advisory bodies operate in a consultative and open fashion.

It bears noting that the 2011 Jenkins expert panel report reviewing federal support to R&D had issues with the current closed advisory system and recommended a more inclusive and open process. It argued "to transform and broaden (the STIC) mandate to encompass whole-of-government advice on innovation goals related to business, science and social innovation, as well as all aspects of business innovation policy and programming. Unlike the STIC, whose policy advice is confidential, the new IAC's (Innovation Advisory Committee) advice should be made public." To date, the current federal government remains immorigerous to this rather sensible recommendation.

So is STIC stuck? Given the veil over the council, the answer is murky at best. Its modus operandi has seemingly been to respond directly to requests from government ministers. Sources indicate that some of the work by STIC has been solicited on such matters as public procurement to stimulate business innovation; attracting and retaining talent; supporting world leading research; enhancing Canada's international science and technology presence; addressing private sector commercialization challenges and; examining the role of science in government.

Clearly, while these issues are of import, they have largely been addressed previously by other organizations in some form, and these mostly through public consultative fora and rigorous analysis. In fact, the government procurement issue was the subject a separate report, undertaken by the Jenkins Panel on behalf of Public Works and Government Services Canada.

The STIC advice is no doubt offered on a well-intentioned, volunteer basis by those who — as the saying goes — ‘are on tap and not on top'. However, properly engaged and more widely communicated, it can offer a larger vista to encourage a healthy, democratic debate. But this can't take place when it is effectively silenced under a shroud of secrecy, and when the science and innovation leadership continues to assume an attitude of prudential acquiescence.

Canadians deserve better

The ongoing and diverse public assessment work of the CCA aside, Canadians clearly deserve better from their science advisory apparatus. This is especially critical given the increasing integration and impact of S&T within policy debates, not to mention the vacuum for sound public advice and evidence created by the elimination of other specialized advisory bodies in recent years.

Governments come and go — not so with science. Science doesn't just power commerce, it is a mainstay of the country's social and cultural fabric. It is meaningless to argue for a strengthened science culture and knowledge-based economy if citizens are in the dark about what evidence is used and advice being given, how it affects them, and on what basis they can participate more actively. It's time to democratize science advice and give it a veritable voice.

And while we're at it, let's work with Parliament to help equip it with a well-resourced and publicly accessible science and innovation office to better empower Canadians with the needed evidence and critical knowledge for everyday decisions they face today and in the future.

Paul Dufour (paulicyworks@gmail.com) is a fellow with the Institute for Science, Society and Policy, University of Ottawa.