Editor's Note: This new column, veteran public S&T policy expert Paul Dufour aims to examine the various past debates and discussions that have engaged our nation on directions of policy for science and innovation. It has one simple purpose — what can we learn from our past experimentation in science policy? Subsequent columns will be posted to the RE$EARCH MONEY web site so check regularly for the latest installment.

History may not repeat itself but as one sage has put it, history rhymes at times. Canada has a rich heritage of dialogue for knowledge and public policy and sometimes we are called on to reflect and learn on such successes and yes, failures. In this column, we aim to bring useful and constructive debates to light that may have been forgotten in the shadows of Canadian science policy archives, but which have emerged in some newer, fresher contexts.

These are personal reflections by Paul Dufour based on his considerable past experience in science policy. We hope you will find it of some value in thinking about future directions.

A science forum takes shape and engages the Canadian public

Readers may have seen recent commentary on ideas such as the proposed Science Media Centre, or the Science Day organized by the Public Policy Forum, as well as RE$EARCH MONEY's own annual and regional conferences — all laudable efforts to strengthen the science and innovation culture. While these are forward-looking, we might also keep in mind the importance of learning from our past. For instance, a novel experiment that engaged Canadians from 1968 to the mid-70s — the journal Science Forum — covered many key debates and issues, including the need for a science policy institute in Canada.

Let us take the way-back machine to that era:

Dateline: February 1968

Place: Ottawa

Event: Launch of the journal Science Forum

Issues: Priority setting, big science and new research funding

A new science and technology policy journal launches it first issue. Science Forum is designed to close the social and cultural gap emerging on the relationship between public policy and advancing S&T. The first issue, edited by the science writer for the Globe and Mail, David Spurgeon, covers a major debate on a proposed big science facility for AECL— the Intense Neutron Generator, a new hydro research facility for Quebec (IREQ), and the outlook for a new approach to medical research in Canadian schools.

Science Forum, published initially by University of Toronto Press, is destined to engage the public in a dialogue for almost a decade and serves as a bilingual sounding board for the science and policy-making communities to vent their issues in an informed way and discuss options openly with Canadians. A fascinating debate in its early issues emerges on the need for a new S&T policy institute in Canada — still germane today.

In the August 1968 edition, EL.Holmes, Waterloo's associate dean of engineering, argues for a new unit on a Canadian campus to study science policy. His thesis is couched within the context of the two-year old Science Council of Canada preparing its first-ever report on the status of Canadian S&T; the opening salvo of a major Senate committee study on science policy (Lamontagne); and an OECD study examining Canada's national research policies.

Holmes is concerned that, with the emergence of a workable and dynamic science policy in Canada, there will be a need to train new talent and understand the factors that shape and influence science and technology down the road. A science policy institute will be required (based perhaps on the newly created unit at the Univ of Sussex in the UK).

Holmes suggests that few governments are in a position to make detailed decisions on science policy on a sound basis, and quotes a Canadian report on tax policy: "So little is known about the kinds of research that are required, and who should do it that it is dangerous to take a firm stand. Canada desperately needs some research on research." Holmes asks for feedback to his suggestion and is re-joined in the same issue by JW Grove at Queen's University who cites the work underway at his university to develop graduate seminars on science and government. Grove argues that university is "well placed to conduct a coordinated program of research on science policy because of its traditionally close and friendly links with Ottawa.... and the fact that many of our natural science colleagues at Queen's are already engaged in important policy studies for the Science Council."

Fortunately, the experimentation over those 40 years did not rest there. As readers will know, Canadian universities and other groups undertook the challenge by establishing various experiments in the form of centres, institutes, think tanks, and networks of research on research, ranging from the Université de Montréal's former Institut d'histoire et de sociopolitique des sciences (the author is an alumnus) and UQAM's CIRST, to Simon Fraser's CPROST (celebrating its 20th year), to the planned new science policy and society institute at the University of Ottawa. SSHRC, NRC and NSERC have been supporters over the years of some of this focus with other university partners via the Innovation Systems Research Network-(ISRN), for example. The public policy agenda has been enriched as a result.

Continued, independent science and innovation analysis and studies will be even more critical for public policy as Canadians discuss and act on the growing impacts, both domestic and global, of knowledge on society and the economy. Indeed, institutionalizing training and research in science and innovation policy will be further explored in the context of the Canadian Conference on Science Policy to take place in Toronto in October (http://sciencepolicy.ca).

The ability to form the next generation of talent able to come to grips with a fast-changing knowledge society as well as address the impact on innovation from the economic crisis and other major public policy issues, will be a key hallmark of success for any such experiments.

Paul Dufour can be reached at at paulicyworks@gmail.com.

This column is dedicated to the memory of Hollis Whitehead, the ever young-thinking and gentle soul who worked tirelessly to improve Canada's science policy.

Next Article: The OECD examines Canada's national science policy — some lessons learned .